Jay Sengupta

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing requiring the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these requirements and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction extending the deadline.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials or contact the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, including a labour arbitrator.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the application against the arbitrator was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal held that labour arbitrators are protected by judicial immunity for decisions made in the exercise of their adjudicative functions.

The application was dismissed as against the arbitrator.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing requiring the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these requirements by the specified deadlines.

A Case Assessment Direction was subsequently issued, providing an extension and warning that failure to comply could result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond or file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after a co-worker made a disparaging remark, prompting the applicant to quit his job the same day.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant did not inform the respondent employer about the co-worker's conduct before resigning, there was no reasonable prospect of proving a link between the employer's actions and the prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged reprisal under the Human Rights Code based on questions asked by the respondent's counsel during his spouse's human rights hearing.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the common law principle of absolute privilege protects statements made by legal counsel and their clients during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated employer.

The applicant submitted that she was employed by a separate agency from the Canadian Forces.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and directed the Application to proceed, allowing the respondent to raise the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant estate filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

A summary hearing teleconference was scheduled.

The respondents attended, but no one appeared for the applicant.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Finding that the applicant received proper notice and provided no explanation for failing to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondents initially failed to file a response, resulting in an interim decision deeming them to have accepted the allegations and waived their right to participate.

The respondents subsequently filed a response, which the Tribunal treated as a request for reconsideration.

As the applicant did not make submissions opposing the request, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to participate in the proceedings.

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

The applicant acknowledged that the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process could address the human rights issues.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding witness lists and documents.

The applicant failed to comply or respond within the specified time.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

In an interim decision, the Tribunal removed the union respondents on consent of the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed that a teleconference hearing would proceed to address the issues of delay in filing the application and whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with by a Board of Referees.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after being disciplined for attempting to apologize to a co-worker for a previous incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to identify how the employer's actions related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions failed to establish any connection between the discipline and a Code-protected ground or reprisal.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the corporate respondent, which had been placed into receivership, and to continue the human rights application against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the corporate respondent and allowed the application to proceed against the individual respondents for alleged harassment.

However, noting that the applicant may be unable to prove discrimination, the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that a summary hearing be held to determine if the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to financial constraints preventing her from retaining counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant a departure from its normal practice, as the applicant had ample time to obtain representation since filing the application.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to immediately file the required hearing documents and witness statements, warning that failure to do so within seven days could result in her being barred from calling witnesses at the hearing.

The applicant requested an order to reconsider and set aside a previous interim decision that dismissed certain allegations as untimely, to amend the application, to consolidate it with another application, and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding no grounds for reconsideration, noting that the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondent and delay the hearing, finding no basis to consolidate with a deferred application, and concluding that a recent change of counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing late receipt of the applicant's documents and insufficient time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's reasons did not amount to extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had ample opportunity to prepare and had failed to comply with the Tribunal's own rules regarding the filing of witness statements and documents.

The applicant sought to reactivate a deferred human rights application past the 60-day deadline, claiming she believed her union was assisting her.

The respondents opposed reactivation and sought dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.

The union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the employment discrimination application.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file witness statements regarding the applicant's explanation for the delay, ruling that the applicant had waived solicitor-client privilege by raising the content of discussions with the union.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with by the soccer club's internal committee hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation or complaints process established under a club's constitution and by-laws does not constitute a 'proceeding' under a statutory regime within the meaning of section 45.1.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided the final reconsideration decision of the OLRB.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found that the requirements under Rule 14 were met, reactivated the application, and ordered the respondents to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondents failed to file a response despite receiving notice and a previous Tribunal direction.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their rights to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant was directed to advise whether she wishes to make oral submissions before a final determination.