Who is Ken Bhattacharjee?

Ken Bhattacharjee is a vice-chair at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario with 567 decisions on record from 2008 to 2017. Key areas include human rights, administrative law, employment and labour law.

What tribunal does Ken Bhattacharjee sit on?

Ken Bhattacharjee sits on the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

What areas of law does Ken Bhattacharjee decide?

Ken Bhattacharjee's most common areas include Human Rights (567 decisions), Administrative Law (209 decisions), Employment and Labour Law (151 decisions). Ken Bhattacharjee has handled 567 decisions across 10 areas.

How many decisions has Ken Bhattacharjee made?

Ken Bhattacharjee has 567 decisions on record from 2008 to 2017.

Who frequently appears before Ken Bhattacharjee?

Representatives who frequently appear before Ken Bhattacharjee include Trevor Smith, Self-represented, Nancy Jammu-Taylor.

Ken Bhattacharjee — Vice-Chair

HRTONov 8, 2017

Tribunal orders witness to appear to ensure fair process for self-represented intervenors.

In an ongoing human rights hearing, the Tribunal noted that self-represented intervenors were facing barriers in presenting evidence.

To ensure a fair and impartial process, the Tribunal exercised its power under Rule 1.7 of its Rules of Procedure to order the former President of the Mississauga Girls Hockey League to appear as a witness, as she possessed relevant evidence that could assist the Tribunal.

Bradley Gallant v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 2017 HRTO 1481

HRTONov 8, 2017

Request for production of video surveillance denied because the footage no longer exists.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of video surveillance footage of an incident.

The respondent opposed the request, stating that the footage was no longer available as its system memory only went back to May 5, 2017.

The Tribunal found that while the footage would be arguably relevant, it could not order the production of something that does not exist.

The request was denied, subject to the applicant's right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses at the hearing.

Worrell v. DiPietro’s Meats and Groceries, 2017 HRTO 1480

HRTOOct 26, 2017

Request for production of documents denied as not arguably relevant to preliminary timeliness issue.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of timeliness.

Kalka v. Brantford Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1415

HRTOOct 24, 2017

Request for production of video surveillance denied as respondent stated the footage does not exist.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of video surveillance footage from a hallway where she alleged she was assaulted by security guards.

The respondent opposed the request, stating that no camera exists in that area and all relevant footage had already been produced.

The Tribunal noted that while the footage would be arguably relevant, it cannot order the production of something that does not exist.

The request was denied, subject to the applicant's right to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses at the hearing.

Natasha Choli v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services et al., 2017 HRTO 1405

HRTOOct 24, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as out of time because delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment approximately three and a half months after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to financial pressures and family health issues during his employment.

The Tribunal found that while this explained the delay during his employment, it did not explain the failure to file within the limitation period after his employment ended.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Bryan v. Penske Truck Leasing Canada Inc., 2017 HRTO 1406

HRTOOct 20, 2017

Human rights allegations of failure to accommodate dismissed for delay; document production request denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age, including a failure to accommodate her disability-related needs.

The respondent requested that the failure to accommodate allegations be dismissed for delay, as they occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant merely claimed ignorance of her rights without showing she had no reason to make inquiries.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for production of documents, finding it was premature and overly broad.

The failure to accommodate allegations were dismissed.

Rati Nagre v. Citigroup Fund Services Canada, Inc., 2017 HRTO 1397

HRTOOct 19, 2017

Human rights application dismissed due to applicant's repeated failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

Tesseris v. My Care Pharmacy, 2017 HRTO 1387

HRTOOct 11, 2017

Tribunal removes five individual respondents and orders a summary hearing for another.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against an organization and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of five individual respondents, arguing the organization was liable for their alleged conduct.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also granted a request by another individual respondent for a summary hearing to determine if the application against him has no reasonable prospect of success.

Bedawi v. The Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2017 HRTO 1338

HRTOOct 6, 2017

Respondent's unopposed request to amend its incomplete Response granted to clarify issues for hearing.

William Miller v. Centric Health Surgical Centre, 2017 HRTO 1325

HRTOOct 5, 2017

Motion to add respondents and amend human rights application to include new allegations granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal in employment.

She subsequently brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the individual respondent's wife and stepdaughter as respondents, and to amend the application to include new allegations of harassment and reprisal against all three.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the new allegations could support a finding of a Code infringement and that adding the respondents and amending the application at this early stage would not cause significant prejudice.

Garibay Loera v. Williams, 2017 HRTO 1311

HRTOOct 5, 2017

Tribunal grants applicant's request to add disability ground and respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

He subsequently requested to amend his application to add the ground of disability, while the respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for a summary hearing, directing that a teleconference be scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed.

Gonder v. Peterborough Regional Health Centre, 2017 HRTO 1314

HRTOOct 5, 2017

Individual respondents removed from human rights application as organizational respondent was vicariously liable.

The organizational respondent and two individual respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board and found that the organizational respondent was alleged to be liable for the same conduct, no issue of vicarious liability was raised, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals.

The request was granted and the individual respondents were removed.

Mastroianni v. Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2017 HRTO 1319

HRTOOct 2, 2017

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent Employment Standards proceeding to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour and subsequently filed a human rights Application with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, which the applicant opposed and the respondent supported.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings raised overlapping issues, including allegations of discrimination and wrongful dismissal, creating a risk of inconsistent findings.

As the Employment Standards claim was filed earlier and was at a more advanced stage, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights Application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

Chandrasekera v. Pusateri’s Fine Foods, 2017 HRTO 1290

HRTOOct 2, 2017

Employer's unopposed request to intervene in a human rights application between two employees is granted.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent.

Both parties worked for Orbis Canada.

Orbis Canada filed an unopposed Request to Intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the employer had a significant interest in the issues, would provide assistance to the Tribunal, and its intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the parties' rights.

Kelly v. Huang, 2017 HRTO 1291

HRTOSep 20, 2017

Human rights application dismissed summarily; allegations of sexual solicitation and discrimination lacked reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a student at the respondent's yoga studio, was barred from attending after the respondent received complaints that he was harassing female staff and students.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the female complainants had actually subjected him to sexual solicitations and advances, and that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to services based on sexual orientation, race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations of sexual solicitations were made in bad faith as a defense against the complaints against him, and that he provided no evidence linking his expulsion to any prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Dick Chui v. Iam Yoga Inc., 2017 HRTO 1236

HRTOSep 19, 2017

Adjournment granted provisionally due to claimed medical unfitness, subject to providing a detailed doctor's note.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing medical unfitness caused by the respondent's late disclosure of a Supplemental Book of Documents.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on a provisional basis due to the applicant's claim of medical unfitness, but ordered the applicant to provide a detailed doctor's note within 21 days to substantiate the claim, failing which the application may be dismissed.

Manuel Espinoza v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1230

HRTOSep 19, 2017

Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend the scheduled preliminary hearing.

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

The Tribunal had previously communicated with the applicant regarding the hearing and advised her to seek legal representation.

After waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled start time, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Citing the duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and noting the resources expended by the respondents and the Tribunal, the adjudicator dismissed the application.

Jamie Knight v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Jonelle Van Delft, 2017 HRTO 1222

HRTOAug 14, 2017

Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services.

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant confirmed his availability.

However, the applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear, noting the Tribunal's duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

Fuller v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 HRTO 1053

HRTOJul 28, 2017

Human rights application alleging discrimination based on mispronunciation and incorrect honorifics dismissed at summary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on ethnic origin, gender identity, and marital status.

The allegations stemmed from police officers allegedly mispronouncing the word 'you' as 'Chu' or 'Jew' and referring to her as 'Mrs.' instead of 'Ms.' in written reports.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to allege or point to evidence showing that the differential treatment imposed a disadvantage on her, which is required to establish substantive discrimination under the Code.

Tran v. The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 970

HRTOJul 28, 2017

Summary hearing to dismiss human rights application denied due to unresolved credibility issues.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applicant's human rights application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the parties presented conflicting versions of key facts.

Because credibility issues cannot be resolved at a summary hearing, the Tribunal ordered a two-day hearing on the merits.

Bradley Gallant v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 2017 HRTO 1481

Worrell v. DiPietro’s Meats and Groceries, 2017 HRTO 1480

Kalka v. Brantford Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1415

Natasha Choli v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services et al., 2017 HRTO 1405

Bryan v. Penske Truck Leasing Canada Inc., 2017 HRTO 1406

Rati Nagre v. Citigroup Fund Services Canada, Inc., 2017 HRTO 1397

Tesseris v. My Care Pharmacy, 2017 HRTO 1387

Bedawi v. The Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2017 HRTO 1338

William Miller v. Centric Health Surgical Centre, 2017 HRTO 1325

Garibay Loera v. Williams, 2017 HRTO 1311

Gonder v. Peterborough Regional Health Centre, 2017 HRTO 1314

Mastroianni v. Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2017 HRTO 1319

Chandrasekera v. Pusateri’s Fine Foods, 2017 HRTO 1290

Kelly v. Huang, 2017 HRTO 1291

Dick Chui v. Iam Yoga Inc., 2017 HRTO 1236

Manuel Espinoza v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1230

Jamie Knight v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General and Jonelle Van Delft, 2017 HRTO 1222

Fuller v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 HRTO 1053

Tran v. The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 970

Dhillon v. Winners Merchants International L.P., 2017 HRTO 963

Applicant

Counsel

Counsel for Applicant

Counsel for Respondents

Counsel for the Respondents

for Altis Human Resources (Ottawa) Inc.

for Andorra Building Maintenance Ltd.

for Baywood Homes

for Beck Taxi Limited

for both Applicants

for Bruce Johnston

for Dr. Victor Wai-Lee Chiu

for himself

for Hurley Corporation, Joe Cunha, Evelyn Hewitt, and Manny Silva

for IIWI Foods Inc. and Gordon Macleod

for Jodie Huber and Rick Pereira

for Linda Tougas HR Consulting Inc. and Linda Tougas

for Loblaws Inc., Respondent

for Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative, Julie Murphy, Debbie August-Moffat, Stephen English, Raymond Ouellet, Mark Smith, Napoleon Mulsa, Dum Siziba, and Lisa Forestell

for McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited

for Regional Tourism Organization Four Inc. and David Peacock

for Robert Half International

for Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union

for Sherilyn Koenig

for Simerra Property Management Inc. and Simcoe Standard Condominium Corporation No. 338

for Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

for the Affected Organization

for the Affected Party

for the Applicant

for the Applicants

for the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

for The Christian Reformed Church in North America – Canada Corporation, The Christian Reformed Church in North America, and Classis Hamilton

for the Intervenor

for the Ontario Nurses' Association

for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union

for the Proposed Intervenor

for the Proposed Respondent

for the Respondent

for the Respondent 1243564 Ontario Limited o/a Total Scrap Management

for the Respondent Andrea Sequeira

for the Respondent Andriy Tsurkan

for the Respondent Anthony Hutchinson

for the Respondent Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc.

for the Respondent Brant Artillery Gunners Club Incorporated

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 133

for the Respondent Cotton Inc.

for the Respondent DTZ Canada Incorporated

for the Respondent ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise and Proposed Respondent Cooney Promotions Inc.

for the Respondent George Cole

for the Respondent Giuseppe Alessandro

for the Respondent Henry Rivas

for the Respondent Hudson Bay Company

for the Respondent Loblaw Companies Limited

for the Respondent Michael Burns

for the Respondent Office of the Independent Police Review Director

for the Respondent R.A. Centre

for the Respondent Right at Home Realty Inc. Brokerage

for the Respondent Rohan Chinniah

for the Respondent Russian Student Association (RSA) at University of Toronto

for the Respondent Ryder Truck Rental Canada Ltd.