Faisal Bhabha

The applicant filed a request to re-activate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the outcome of a Family Court proceeding.

The applicant provided a copy of the Court's order demonstrating that the concurrent proceeding had concluded.

As the respondents did not file a response and the risk of inconsistent decisions had passed, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered that the application proceed.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite a previous Interim Decision directing him to do so.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5, deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation.

A one-day hearing was ordered to determine if the accepted facts demonstrate a breach of the Code and to address remedies.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant took no position.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found no allegations relating to the personal respondent's individual actions and no prejudice to the applicant in proceeding against the corporate respondent alone.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Windsor, which named the applicant's union as an additional respondent.

The union failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the union to file a response by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the union to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application against Canada Post Corporation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent is a federal undertaking, placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested the file be transferred to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but was advised the Tribunal has no such procedure.

After failing to provide submissions on jurisdiction or withdraw the application, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant and respondents both filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend the pleadings.

The parties agreed that Charlene Linzon was named as a personal respondent in error and that the allegations actually related to Perla Lansang.

The Tribunal granted the requests, removing Linzon and adding Lansang as a personal respondent, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and its Complaints Committee co-chair in their handling of his complaints against two physicians.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that the HPARB proceedings constituted another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, including the allegations of discrimination.

Concluding that proceeding with the application would amount to an abuse of process, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant had a history of non-participation, including failing to file a reply, missing a scheduled mediation, ignoring requests for orders, and failing to fulfill disclosure obligations.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individually named respondents from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent conceded vicarious liability for the actions of its employees.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondents and noted no prejudice to the applicant.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed as parties.

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

At the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, citing difficulties obtaining medical reports and witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

As the applicant was unprepared to proceed and called no evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to dismiss the application for lack of evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability.

A hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was sent to the applicant.

The respondents attended the hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend and failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned his case and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed applications alleging breach of settlement, discrimination, and reprisal.

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

The applicant's request to remove respondent counsel for an alleged conflict of interest during mediation was dismissed, as there was no evidence counsel acted for the applicant.

The respondent's request for a cease and desist order against the applicant was deferred.

The applicant's request to bar a respondent from participating was dismissed because the respondent properly relied on an exemption to filing a complete response due to a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the applicability of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code at the upcoming hearing.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding he engaged in harassment and sexual solicitation.

The respondent had previously been deemed to have accepted all allegations and waived his right to participate after failing to file a Response.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding the respondent had no right to notice of the hearing due to his deemed waiver, and failed to provide any details of alleged new facts.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain medical documents, identify witnesses, and secure new counsel after his previous counsel withdrew.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested an order for particulars and disclosure, noting the applicant had failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, as the reasons cited were entirely within the applicant's control.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately comply with his disclosure obligations, failing which he may be prevented from introducing evidence at the hearing.