Faisal Bhabha

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance regarding the same allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The applicant withdrew his grievance specifically to proceed with the Tribunal application.

The respondents argued the application should remain deferred or be dismissed, asserting the grievance process was still available.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding that adjudicative duplication was no longer an issue and the applicant was entitled to proceed before the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and services, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

Because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to awaiting the outcome of an internal university investigation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to hear oral submissions from the parties on whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether the request to expedite should be granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing union grievance covering the same subject matter.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitrator had the authority to address the discrimination claim and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

The respondent requested a last-minute adjournment of a three-day hearing due to illness, supported by advice from Telehealth Ontario.

The applicants opposed the request, alleging the illness was fabricated and citing inconvenience.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding illness to be an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment and noting no reason to doubt the respondent's claim at this time.

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

The Tribunal was unable to serve the application on the respondents at the address provided.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide correct contact information within 20 days.

After more than 50 days passed without a response from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 6.6(b), which provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application if the respondent cannot be contacted.

The applicant alleged that his former landlord discriminated against him and harassed him on the basis of race, citizenship, and disability.

The applicant claimed the landlord used psychotronic devices, colluded with security officials, and failed to address maintenance issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations lacked credibility and were unsupported by evidence.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Justice of the Peace, prosecutor, and police officer during a traffic court proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last incident.

The applicant failed to provide submissions demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for delay, noting additionally that the adjudicative processes of courts are not 'services' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, harassment, and reprisal, checking the box for "record of offences" as the ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to plead any facts connecting the workplace issues to a record of offences, nor did the applicant allege she had a record of offences.

The applicant did not file submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding the allegations related to general workplace unfairness rather than Code-protected grounds.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code and that the applicant had exercised an informed and reasoned choice in signing it, without severe financial pressure or duress.

The Tribunal concluded it would be an abuse of process to allow the application to proceed and dismissed it.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a related civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the legal issues were separate.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that while the legal issues were distinct, they relied on interrelated facts, and deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued that the respondents deliberately caused his disability to frustrate his ability to file on time and that he was misunderstood at the preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to raise any new determinative facts, adduce inconsistent jurisprudence, or establish that the delay was incurred in good faith due to disability-related incapacity.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that one of the applicant's complaints before the HPARB had not yet been finally determined.

The Tribunal found that the HPARB proceedings were effectively concluded and there was no ongoing process that risked duplicating the hearing of evidence.

The Tribunal lifted the deferral and directed the application to proceed.

The applicant, a single mother, rented rooms in a house shared with the respondent landlord.

The respondent engaged in a persistent pattern of sexual solicitation, unwanted touching, and inappropriate comments, despite the applicant's clear rejections.

When the applicant confronted him, the respondent retaliated by issuing an eviction notice and making false reports to the police and her employer.

The respondent failed to participate in the Tribunal proceedings and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct constituted sexual harassment and solicitation under the Human Rights Code, and that the shared accommodation exemption did not apply to sexual harassment.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $25,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a blind, racialized, Muslim woman, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and sex.

She was employed as an intake settlement worker and was terminated after six weeks.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant through the enforcement of a microwave policy that adversely affected her based on ancestry and ethnic origin, and a dress code policy that failed to accommodate her religious attire (hijab) based on creed and sex.

The Tribunal also found that the termination was discriminatory.

The respondents were ordered to pay $15,000 in general damages and $21,070 for lost wages, and to undergo human rights training and policy review.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

At the hearing, the applicant refused to testify from the witness stand, engaged in mutual name-calling with the personal respondent, and stormed out of the hearing room.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant failed to introduce any evidence to establish a case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a request for an interim remedy, seeking an order that the respondent cease alleged reprisal actions and derogatory remarks.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to comply with Rule 23.3 by not providing declarations from persons with first-hand knowledge or submissions on the balance of harm.

The Tribunal noted that parties are entitled to contact potential witnesses and compete in business while litigation is ongoing, and that the reprisal allegations would be addressed at the hearing.

In a human rights application against a school board and two individuals, the applicant requested an order for the disclosure of report cards of other students, teacher performance appraisals, and particulars regarding the training of the school administrators who investigated the complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request for the report cards, finding they were protected by statutory privilege under section 266(2) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide further particulars regarding the training and credentials of the administrators who conducted the internal investigation.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the Notice of Application and a subsequent interim decision to the respondents, but the mail and courier packages were returned marked as 'bad address'.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide current, complete, and accurate contact information for the respondents within 20 days, or to explain why the provided address is believed to be correct, in accordance with Rule 6.6(b).

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in his employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

He claimed his supervisor made derogatory comments about his English proficiency and that he was unfairly demoted during a bumping process.

He also alleged a co-worker made a racially offensive comment.

At the close of the applicant's case, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegations and dismissed the application.