Ken Bhattacharjee

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on creed by a university professor.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment more than 14 days after receiving the notice of hearing, arguing that an ongoing internal university investigation constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal dismissed the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how the parallel investigation constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying a late adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing on the merits, despite having confirmed the date and time with Tribunal staff two days prior.

The respondent attended with counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that applicants have a responsibility to attend and provide evidence, and that the Tribunal has a duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously to ensure effective use of public resources and fairness to respondents.

The applicant, a correctional officer, filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and a poisoned work environment, including racist hate mail.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the GSB proceeding dealt with earlier allegations from 2005-2009, whereas the current application concerned new allegations from April 2010 onwards.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was essentially identical to a previous application that had been dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the new application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal found that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding and that attempting to relitigate the matter was an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a senior with mobility-limiting disabilities, requested a transfer from her second-floor apartment to a vacant main-floor apartment to avoid climbing stairs.

The respondent landlord refused the request, citing the applicant's physical and mental needs, alleged hoarding, and past late rent payments, and began showing the unit to others.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent failed to fulfill his procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant up to the point of undue hardship, as he relied on after-the-fact justifications and made no inquiries into how her needs could be accommodated.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to rent the main-floor apartment to the applicant and awarded $4,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police based on perceived mental disability, race, and other grounds, as well as reprisal, regarding the investigation of his complaints of criminal harassment.

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

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymity, citing the open justice principle.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the police investigation was tainted by discrimination or that the officers' actions constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its main witness could not attend due to her father being extremely ill and close to death.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing had already been rescheduled and he had booked time off work.

The Tribunal found the witness's situation constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing was granted.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure rules, and alternatively requested that one of its witnesses be permitted to testify electronically.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the applicant had confirmed his attendance and provided a reasonable explanation for non-compliance.

The Tribunal granted the request for the witness to testify by speaker phone, noting the witness was in England and the applicant did not argue significant prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by her former church and its governing bodies, claiming they failed to properly investigate her complaints of spousal abuse and denied her due process in internal appeals.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the denial of her appeals and her sex, and noting that the respondents had no duty to investigate a discrimination complaint that was never made to them.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against certain respondents due to a lack of timeliness.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's near five-year delay in filing her application was not incurred in good faith.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued new facts to explain her delay, stating she had to 'lay low' to regain her emotional footing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the new facts were not determinative and showed a lack of due diligence rather than a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant, an injured worker, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents, who provided him with Labour Market Re-entry services.

The respondents terminated his services in July 2008 after he refused to sign a consent form, and in April 2010, they refused to reinstate him unless he signed it.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the allegations relating to the 2004-2008 period as untimely, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining allegation regarding the April 2010 refusal, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to explain how requiring a consent form amounted to a Code violation or reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs by denying him prescription medications during his incarceration.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for an adjournment and for the production of his former cell mates' contact information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the applicant's failure to contact witnesses and vague scheduling conflict did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the production request, finding the cell mates' evidence would not be relevant.

The Tribunal directed the parties to be prepared to address whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success if the applicant fails to call his doctor as a witness.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to counsel's scheduling conflict, after failing to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the disclosure of documents and witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that a vague assertion of a scheduling conflict does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, particularly when preceded by a failure to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide the required disclosure within one week.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a record of offences and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the allegations might fall outside its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as the allegations involved a Highway Traffic Act conviction and reprisals for claiming Code rights.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the discrimination allegation pertained to the conduct of opposing counsel in another proceeding, which falls outside the scope of services under the Code.

The reprisal allegations lacked any reasonable prospect of proving an intention to retaliate.

Given the applicant's history of filing multiple meritless and untimely applications against the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, prohibiting further applications against the respondent without leave.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, with the consent of the respondents, because he had recently retained legal counsel who needed time to review the file.

The request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being dismissed from the respondent's program.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of proving her case, as she intended to call witnesses and present evidence of differential treatment compared to White students.

The Tribunal concluded that the application should proceed to a merits hearing.

The respondents requested the dismissal of parts of a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police as untimely, and sought an order for the production of a document.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were discrete incidents not forming a series with the timely ones, and the applicant's explanation for the delay did not establish good faith.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce any relevant Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding one of the timely incidents.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call, but the applicant failed to attend.

After waiting the standard 30 minutes and confirming notice was sent, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to include a new reprisal allegation and sought a stay of the proceedings pending an application for judicial review of a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegation was within its jurisdiction despite the delay, and set a schedule for written submissions and a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for a stay, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, noting the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters expeditiously.