Faisal Bhabha

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed beyond the one-year time limit prescribed in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident occurred more than a year before the application was filed and that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against her former employer and the labour arbitrator who upheld her discharge.

The arbitrator requested dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity and issue estoppel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the arbitrator, finding that an adjudicative decision is not a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to continue the application against her former employer, pending a potential section 45.1 dismissal.

The applicants filed an application under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code alleging that the corporate respondent violated Minutes of Settlement by failing to implement public interest remedies and pay certain monies.

The applicants subsequently requested leave to withdraw the application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

With the respondents' consent, the Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent, acting through a court-appointed interim receiver, requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary teleconference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed due to the release, and established a timeline for the parties to file materials.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment, arguing that the applicant had an ongoing civil claim for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code was not triggered because the civil claim did not raise the Code or seek remedies for discrimination.

The respondent was ordered to file a full response, and the applicant was directed to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the civil action.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the subject-matter was substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code.

The applicant failed to make submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 24, 2009, citing a medical emergency involving the personal respondent's brother abroad.

Although a previous adjournment had been granted and there was a history of delay, the Tribunal found that a medical emergency involving a close family member constituted exceptional circumstances.

The adjournment was granted, and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled peremptorily for September.

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 warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and provided a final deadline of August 10, 2009, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of a taxicab licence in 1983 and discriminatory enforcement of municipal law in 2006.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on several grounds, primarily delay, without filing a full Response.

The Tribunal found it fair not to require a full Response given the extraordinary length of time since the alleged events.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary oral hearing solely to determine the issue of timeliness under section 34 of the Code.

The applicant filed six separate human rights applications against various respondents, including the City of Toronto, developers, property managers, and the Province, alleging discrimination regarding the accessibility of his condominium building.

The Province brought a request to dismiss the application against it, arguing it was not a proper party and the applicant failed to plead an arguable case regarding the Building Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the Province's request, finding the applicant pleaded an arguable case seeking systemic remedies and damages for alleged discriminatory under-inclusiveness of the Building Code.

The Tribunal also ordered that all six applications be consolidated and heard together, as they share a substantial factual and legal nexus, and consolidation would be fair, just, and expeditious.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondents to produce documents, provide witness statements, and provide particulars, as well as to remove a personal respondent.

The respondents, who were in the process of seeking new legal representation, failed to meet their disclosure deadlines and did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately deliver witness statements and requested documents, and removed the personal respondent.

The respondents requested early dismissal of a human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had filed a concurrent wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court arising from the same events.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not raised the Code or alleged discrimination in her civil action.

The Tribunal held that factual overlap between the two proceedings does not trigger the jurisdictional bar where distinct legal issues are pleaded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent used his disability to his detriment while testifying as a witness in a family court proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations did not relate to a protected social area under the Human Rights Code.

As the Code does not regulate private relationships outside specific social areas like goods, services, housing, or employment, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability 19 months after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant explained the delay was because he needed time to discover his options.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether it would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent, pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment due to threats, bullying, and marginalization.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to allege a ground of discrimination protected by the Human Rights Code.

In her written submissions, the applicant did not link her allegations to any protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it does not have general jurisdiction to resolve all workplace conflicts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against her former employer and the arbitrator who upheld her termination.

The arbitrator requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing judicial immunity.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the content and reasoning of a statutory decision-maker's decision.

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, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted a final 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

Prior to a preliminary hearing on timeliness and whether the substance of the application was dealt with in other proceedings, the applicant requested an order for the production of attendance records and notes from an OLRB mediator and private arbitrator.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the notes were not in the respondents' possession, were privileged under the Labour Relations Act, and that the attendance records were not relevant to the preliminary issues.

The Tribunal convened a hearing which the personal respondent failed to attend, despite being aware of it and being summoned by the organizational respondent.

The personal respondent claimed lack of knowledge of the application and misunderstanding regarding legal representation.

The Tribunal noted the hearing had begun and would continue with or without her, outlining the potential consequences of her non-attendance under Rule 3.13.

The Tribunal also ordered the organizational respondent to respond to the applicant's production request and ordered the personal respondent to comply with disclosure rules.