Faisal Bhabha

The applicant filed human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The applicant subsequently discontinued the civil action.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to decide whether section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code applied, and directed the Registrar to deliver the applications to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Brockville Police Service and an individual officer.

The Brockville Police Service responded that it was improperly named, as the officer was a member of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The applicant consented to removing the Brockville Police Service as a respondent.

The OPP requested consolidation with another application arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the Brockville Police Service and directed that the matters be scheduled for joint mediation, deferring the consolidation request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Brockville Police Service and an individual officer.

The Brockville Police Service filed a response stating it was improperly named, as the individual officer was a member of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The applicant consented to removing the Brockville Police Service as a respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the Brockville Police Service and amended the style of cause.

The Tribunal also deferred a request by the OPP to consolidate the matter with another application, ordering that the matters first proceed to joint mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the handling and denial of his claim for statutory benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction over the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to the adjudicative function of the WSIB and its interpretation of its enabling legislation, rather than the provision of a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had already appealed the College's decisions to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that the HPARB appeals addressed substantially the same issues, including discrimination and Charter arguments, and granted the request to defer the application pending the outcome of the HPARB proceedings to avoid duplication.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a full and final release signed by the applicant upon termination.

The Tribunal directed that a teleconference be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue of whether the application should be dismissed based on the release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction over the Information and Privacy Commissioner's adjudicative decisions.

The applicant alleged bias and conflict of interest, relying on ethnic stereotyping of the adjudicator and respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no new evidence, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and that the allegations of bias were completely unfounded and unreasonable.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal or deferral pending a duty of fair representation complaint at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant's union sought to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the OLRB complaint involved different parties and legal frameworks.

The request for early dismissal was deferred pending mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, colour, and family status.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application pending the outcome of related union grievances, and objected to the applicant's late-filed Reply.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, accepted the applicant's late Reply due to lack of prejudice, and denied the respondents' deferral request because the remaining grievance was narrowly focused on recovering lost wages rather than the broader human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

The respondent filed a partial Response raising jurisdictional objections and requested early dismissal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to compel a full Response.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a complete Response, noting that a full Response is generally required prior to making preliminary objections, and the respondent's jurisdictional issue did not fall into any of the recognized exceptions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services regarding the termination of his WSIB benefits and a determination of his employability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the Tribunal lacks authority to review WSIB decisions, or alternatively, deferral pending the applicant's internal WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application falls within its jurisdiction and whether deferral is appropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after her seasonal employment at a summer camp was not renewed.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed due to delay, as it was filed more than a year after the alleged discriminatory acts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant reasonably discovered the alleged breach well before the one-year limitation period expired and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed for being filed out of time without establishing the good faith necessary to extend the limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) discriminated against him on the basis of disability during its adjudicative process.

The respondent raised jurisdictional objections, arguing that the IPC's decision-making process is privileged and beyond the Code's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacks the authority to hear appeals from or substantively review the final decisions of other statutory tribunals, and the applicant failed to plead facts that would give rise to remedies within the Tribunal's power.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required time.

The respondent contacted the Tribunal explaining that the Application was delivered to the correct address but not to a company representative because the contact person listed was inaccurate.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an extension of 35 days to file a Response.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) discriminated against her by failing to find that sexual harassment in her former workplace entitled her to benefits.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario lacks jurisdiction to review WSIAT decisions.

The Tribunal agreed, holding that while a statutory decision-making process is a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the actual decision, reasons, and result are not.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) in the provision of services, following an unsuccessful appeal regarding a freedom of information request.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the IPC's decision-making process is privileged and beyond the Code's scope.

The applicant also requested an interim remedy to remove the respondent's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal deferred the interim remedy request and directed the applicant to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue before proceeding further.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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 noting the failure to respond and warning the respondent that if a Response is not filed by a specified final deadline, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline and was ordered to do so with an explanation.

The corporate respondent filed the Response eight days late, explaining that a former manager had failed to file it as believed by the shareholders.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation and permitted the late filing, subject to the applicant's right to raise prejudice.