Faisal Bhabha

The applicant, who had a pardoned criminal record, was offered a position as an Addictions Interventions Instructor by the corporate respondent.

The offer was rescinded the next day after the respondent learned of his criminal history.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his record of offences, contrary to section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $24,375 for lost wages, and to develop a future compliance plan.

The personal respondent was found not liable as she acted within the scope of her duties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability 19 months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to his ignorance of the law and the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without a reasonable explanation for failing to make timely inquiries does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 62-year-old internal candidate, alleged age discrimination after he was unsuccessful in his application for a promotion to assistant area manager.

The respondent hired a younger external candidate, citing the applicant's history of difficulties with authority and lack of enthusiasm for workplace changes as the reasons for his rejection.

The Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence of age discrimination, concluding that the respondent's decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory concerns about the applicant's suitability and fit for a management role.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer, three managers, and an insurance company.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to consolidate the matter with his earlier transition application and allowed the union to intervene.

The Tribunal also granted the employer's request to remove the individually-named managers as respondents, noting the employer conceded vicarious liability.

Requests by the employer and the insurer for early dismissal based on lack of particulars, delay, and lack of jurisdiction were denied as premature, though the applicant was ordered to provide further particulars regarding the benefits plan allegations.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not plain and obvious at this preliminary juncture that the allegations should be dismissed.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce a summary of specific allegations against the remaining respondent, noting that failure to plead facts with sufficient particularity could prevent the applicant from introducing evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal determined it was appropriate to address the delay issue as a preliminary matter and directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to consider whether the application was filed within the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and if not, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept the application under s. 34(2).

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add the social area of 'Contracts' and requesting an order compelling the production of a mirror copy of the personal respondent's computer hard drives.

The respondents opposed both requests.

The Tribunal deferred the decision on the amendment to the hearing, directing the parties to make submissions on the applicability of the Code's social areas.

The Tribunal denied the production request, finding it overly broad, invasive, and unlikely to provide relevant evidence regarding the sexual harassment allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release during a mediation.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to duress, financial pressure, and lack of understanding.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of unconscionability, coercion, or duress sufficient to override the legally binding agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response by March 9, 2010, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant signed a full and final release and the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 34(11) or s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, noting that s. 43(2) requires affording parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before final disposal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal during his post-doctoral fellowship.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the respondents failed to establish at this stage that the application was out of time, as the applicant's allegations could potentially constitute a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied, with leave for the respondents to raise it again after the applicant's evidence.

The applicant's request to expedite the proceedings was also denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated due to pregnancy.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior decision by an Employment Standards Officer appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to consider the s. 45.1 request, noting that s. 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove Our Lady of Lourdes School and Catholic Education Centre as respondents, arguing they are not legal entities capable of responding to the application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the school board would be vicariously liable for any actions attributed to the erroneously named respondents, and removed them from the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondent filed a partial response requesting that the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue of the release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, unless the parties consent to a written hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because she had recently retained counsel who required more time to prepare.

The corporate respondent also requested a production order against two third parties.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the late retention of counsel was within the applicant's control and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also declined to issue a production order against the third parties, directing the corporate respondent to use the Tribunal's summons process instead.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The request was based solely on allegations that the adjudicator was biased and incompetent, repeating claims made in previous proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no new facts or evidence to support the allegations and noting that an adverse finding does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in a hiring process brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to compel the respondent to disclose interview notes.

The respondent opposed the request on the basis that the notes were lost or destroyed during an office move.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it could not order the disclosure of documents that no longer exist or are not in the respondent's possession.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his employer's failure to accommodate his workplace injury and his subsequent termination.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had fully canvassed the history of the applicant's injury, the employer's accommodation attempts, and the justness of the termination.

The Tribunal concluded that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration proceeding and dismissed the application to avoid duplicate litigation.

The applicant, a 58-year-old restaurant server, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her age, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to a shortage of work and workplace restructuring under new management.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was replaced by seasonal staff and individuals with specific expertise desired for the restaurant's new image.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that age was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, and dismissed the application.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination brought preliminary requests.

The respondents sought orders compelling the applicant's litigation guardian to consent to the disclosure of the applicant's personal health information and Ontario Student Record (OSR) to assist in preparing their responses.

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) also sought to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the disclosure requests, finding it premature to order broad disclosure at the pleadings stage and noting it lacks jurisdiction to compel the disclosure of privileged OSR documents.

The Tribunal also denied the TDSB's request to be removed, applying the Persaud factors and finding that distinct allegations were made against the TDSB and its staff.