Ken Bhattacharjee

The applicant, a person with a developmental disability, worked as a general labourer for the respondent for over 10 years.

She was paid a 'training honorarium' of $1.00 to $1.25 per hour, while non-disabled employees performing substantially similar work were paid the statutory minimum wage.

The Tribunal found that this differential pay practice constituted discrimination on the basis of disability, as it imposed an arbitrary disadvantage on the applicant solely because of her disability, despite allowing her to maintain provincial disability support payments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and issued compliance orders including a cease and desist order and mandatory training.

The applicant, a 52-year-old man, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, reprisal, and threats of reprisal by a university student association, its former president, and the university.

The applicant alleged he was barred from attending the student association's social events and had his membership revoked due to his age and other protected grounds.

The respondents requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents from 2007 to 2009 as untimely.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success, as the student association's events were aimed at young students and barring an older non-student did not constitute arbitrary disadvantage under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application at least two and a half months after the one-year statutory time limit expired.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or establish that it was incurred in good faith, as he did not present medical evidence showing his depression prevented him from pursuing his legal rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding, who alleged racial profiling and discrimination by Toronto Police Service officers, served a Summons to Witness on the Chief of Police to appear at the hearing.

The Chief requested an order quashing the summons, arguing he had no direct knowledge of the incidents.

The Tribunal quashed the summons, finding the applicant failed to establish that the Chief's proposed evidence was relevant to the issues in the proceeding, as he was not present during the alleged incidents and the application did not involve detailed allegations of systemic discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding.

The request was filed approximately 25 days after the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal waived the time limit, finding that the delay was incurred in good faith because the applicant was not informed of the criminal proceeding's conclusion until after the deadline, and there was no evidence of substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal regarding workplace accommodation.

Concurrently, his union had filed grievances on his behalf concerning discipline and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Applying the factors from Baghdasserians, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate given the substantial overlap in facts, issues, and remedies between the two proceedings, and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed nine human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisals by the respondents for incidents occurring between 1992 and 1998, and between 2012 and 2013.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the 1992-1998 incidents, finding the 14-year delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the 2012-2013 incidents, finding the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged incidents to a prohibited ground of discrimination, meaning there was no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal disregard the respondent's late Response and reactivate his deferred application following the conclusion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding.

The Tribunal waived the time limit for the late Response, finding no prejudice to the applicant and noting the applicant contributed to the delay by improperly delivering an unfinalized copy of the application to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application, as the applicant complied with the Rules and the respondent did not oppose.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, and age after being disciplined by the school board following an internal complaint.

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

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to his race, place of origin, or age, merely asserting that discrimination was the only possible reason.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove discrimination on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant requested to reactivate two deferred human rights applications following the completion of a grievance proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The respondents did not oppose reactivation but requested that the applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss.

The applicant filed a third human rights application against the respondents, raising essentially the same allegations of discrimination and reprisal that had been dismissed in two previous applications.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process and that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the same issues, which constituted an abuse of process.

Furthermore, given the applicant's persistent filing of the same application without reasonable grounds and her refusal to pursue judicial review, the Tribunal declared her a vexatious litigant and required her to obtain permission before filing future applications against the respondents.

The applicant, an injured worker receiving WSIB benefits, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by the WSIB and its staff.

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

The Tribunal found that it does not have the power to review decisions under benefit programs to determine if they are correct, and the applicant failed to show a link between the alleged poor customer service or harassment and his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal after being denied a promotion.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the respondent's request to strike allegations of incidents occurring outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant could adduce evidence of past incidents as background information to support her reprisal claim, provided the incidents were sufficiently particularized and relevant.

The Tribunal excluded evidence of several unrelated incidents and limited the witness lists for both parties to ensure a fair and expeditious hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his allegations of discrimination, harassment, and reprisal against the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to explain how his request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, and instead merely repeated arguments made at the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Tribunal also provided directions to the self-represented applicant regarding his remaining allegations, noting his mental disabilities and advising him to seek legal assistance.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after her long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement provision.

The respondent police services board acknowledged the provision was unintentionally discriminatory and noted a new, non-discriminatory collective agreement had since been reached.

The parties resolved the application to their mutual satisfaction, and the Tribunal disposed of the matter.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The original application was dismissed because it attempted to re-litigate matters previously resolved through a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to establish new facts that could not have been obtained earlier, did not demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence, and merely sought to reargue her case.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondent employer, alleging discrimination based on disability and subsequent reprisal for filing the first application.

The first application had previously been deferred pending the outcome of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.

The respondent requested that the second application also be deferred and that the two applications be consolidated.

The Tribunal found that the reprisal allegations were inextricably linked to the discrimination allegations and the WSIAT proceeding, raising the potential for inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the second application deferred pending the WSIAT proceeding and consolidated the two applications.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging that their landlord discriminated against them based on disability and receipt of public assistance by coercing them into a repayment contract without their legal counsel.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applications pending an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding no evidence that the LTB was dealing with the same facts and issues as the human rights applications.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1573 filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, noting that the application raises issues that may affect the union.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent sabotaged his WSIB claim.

The respondent requested the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the ongoing WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the clear overlap in facts and issues and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.