Ken Bhattacharjee

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed grievances raising nearly identical allegations, which were proceeding to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was ongoing and the Grievance Settlement Board had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application naming ECE Distribution Ltd. and an individual as respondents.

ECE Distribution Ltd. filed a response denying an employment relationship, claiming the applicant was an independent contractor with Cooney Promotions Inc. The Tribunal previously added Cooney Promotions Inc. as a respondent and requested submissions on whether ECE Distribution Ltd. should be removed.

Based on the applicant's uncontradicted submissions showing overlapping corporate directors, shared addresses, and email signatures, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of an employment-related relationship to retain ECE Distribution Ltd. as a respondent at this preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his deferred human rights application, stating his union informed him of a proposed settlement but he lacked details.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance proceeding was ongoing because the applicant had not agreed to the proposed settlement, which required him to withdraw his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the application because the grievance proceeding had not yet concluded.

The applicant, a disabled senior, alleged housing discrimination and requested an interim remedy allowing her to transfer to a first-floor apartment to accommodate her mobility issues.

The respondent landlord opposed the request, citing health and safety concerns and the applicant's attempt to forcibly occupy the unit.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to move in immediately due to her forcible entry attempt, but ordered the respondent not to rent the apartment to anyone else pending an expedited hearing on the merits, finding that the balance of harm favoured preserving the availability of the unit.

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 grievance proceeding.

The applicant acknowledged that the grievance proceeding was still ongoing and a hearing was scheduled.

The respondent opposed the reactivation.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the application because, under Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, an application deferred pending another legal proceeding cannot be reactivated until that other proceeding has concluded.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested that it be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The respondents consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application on consent, noting that the respondents' request to remove certain parties would be considered if and when the application is reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents, who produce a television show broadcast nationally.

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

The applicant submitted that the show is privately funded and produced by an Ontario company, and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission advised him the matter falls under provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed the respondents to address the issue in their Response.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to add the ground of reprisal, noting she was unrepresented when she filed the application but had included the essential facts.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to comply immediately with their disclosure obligations regarding documents and witnesses.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code and later requested to withdraw it after the respondent had filed a response.

The respondent objected, requesting that the application be dismissed to ensure finality.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application without terms, noting that if a new application based on the same subject matter is filed in the future, the respondent may object at that time.

The applicant, who alleged his employment was terminated due to disability and age discrimination, requested the production of a list of employees, performance reviews of other drivers, and specific emails.

The respondents opposed the request, citing privacy, relevance, and overbreadth.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' test and ordered the production of the requested documents, subject to limitations to protect privacy and ensure relevance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and sexual advances by a manager, which she claimed led to her termination.

The respondent denied the allegations and noted the lack of particulars regarding the alleged sexual advances.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions ordering the applicant to provide the missing details, including the name of the manager and the dates of the incidents.

The applicant failed to fully comply with these directions and ceased communicating with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, emphasizing its duty to dispose of matters fairly and expeditiously.

The applicant, a disabled senior with mobility issues, filed a human rights application alleging housing discrimination after her landlord refused to transfer her to an available first-floor apartment.

She requested that the proceedings be expedited because the first-floor apartment might be rented to someone else imminently.

The Tribunal found that the applicant identified urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution and directed the parties to attend a hearing to address whether an interim remedy should be issued.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding a 2009 failure to promote as out of time, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegation regarding Sunday scheduling, finding the employer's accommodation of giving the applicant every Saturday off for religious reasons was reasonable and did not create a true disadvantage.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the 2011 denial of a Staffing Coordinator position to proceed to a merits hearing, as there was a reasonable prospect that circumstantial evidence could show a link to the prohibited grounds.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant argued the decision should be reconsidered under Rule 26.5(c) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how his request met the criteria and instead merely repeated arguments made during the original hearing.

The Tribunal noted that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue a case.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because a key witness would be overseas attending a wedding.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the witness could fly back for the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's counsel had erred in agreeing to the hearing date without fully consulting his client, and that it would be unfair to proceed without the key witness.

The Tribunal concluded these were extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment and directed the parties to provide new availability.

The applicants, minors acting through their mother as next friend, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent swim club discriminated against them based on race and subjected them to reprisals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues, including timeliness, a request to amend the application, and whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations outside the one-year statutory deadline.

The request to amend the application to add new allegations for one applicant (R.B.) was denied, and her application was dismissed.

The request to amend for the other applicant (J.B.) was granted.

The Tribunal found that J.B.'s allegation of racial discrimination had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to a merits hearing, but dismissed his allegation of reprisal.

The applicants alleged that the respondents discriminated against them based on family status when they were asked to move to an outer waiting area at a court reporting centre because they had a baby with them.

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

The Tribunal found that even if the applicants' allegations were true, the respondents' conduct did not amount to substantive discrimination, as moving to a similar waiting area did not create a true disadvantage.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to trigger the duty to accommodate by not informing the respondents that the outer area was uncomfortable for their baby before leaving the premises.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair and has a service dog, alleged that the respondent restaurant discriminated against him by refusing service on its patio because of his dog.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was told by two individuals that his dog was not allowed, he failed to prove these individuals were staff members.

The respondent's evidence, corroborated by independent witnesses, established that only one staff member was on duty and she did not interact with the applicant.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant likely mistook other customers for staff after a dispute, and dismissed the application as the respondent could not be held liable for the conduct of its customers.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment on the first day of the hearing, stating he was not sufficiently proficient in English and needed a professional interpreter.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to disclose documents and the costs of attending.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's need for an interpreter to have a fair hearing constituted extraordinary circumstances, but made the next hearing dates peremptory to the applicant and ordered strict compliance with disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued, citing the unavailability of her newly proposed legal counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying its standard approach that a party's failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting a late adjournment.