Ken Bhattacharjee

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, anonymization, and a conversion of the hearing into a mediation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's pending Legal Aid application and knee injury did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the anonymization request, emphasizing the principle of open justice.

The request to convert the hearing into a mediation was denied as the parties had already attended an unsuccessful mediation.

The Tribunal directed that the parties provide oral submissions at the outset of the hearing on whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a 40-year-old candidate for a probationary firefighter position, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on age during the hiring process.

He claimed the points system favoured younger candidates, the interview panel scored him poorly due to his age, and the requirement to provide a birth certificate and driver's license prior to the interview improperly classified him by age.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the points system and the hiring decision, finding no evidence of age discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent violated s. 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by requiring documents that disclosed the applicant's age prior to a conditional offer of employment.

The Tribunal declined to award monetary damages but ordered the respondent to cease requesting documents with Code ground identifiers during the application and interview process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by her church, its elders, and affiliated organizations, claiming she was denied pastoral care and forced to resign her membership following a marital breakdown.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year statutory deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's near five-year delay in filing regarding the initial incidents was not incurred in good faith, dismissing the allegations from 2003 to 2005 and removing the local church and its elders as respondents.

The Tribunal added two affiliated organizations as respondents and directed a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegations regarding the internal appeal process had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the first day of the hearing, scheduled for March 19, 2012, because the applicant and the individual respondent had agreed in principle to settle the case.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request and directed the applicant to clarify whether she intended to proceed against the organizational respondent, which appeared to be closed and without assets.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate and amend his human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant acknowledged that the grievance proceeding was ongoing and an arbitration hearing was scheduled for late summer 2012.

The respondents opposed the reactivation but consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate because the grievance proceeding had not concluded, in accordance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request to amend will be considered if and when the Application is properly reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisals against ECE Distribution Ltd. and an individual respondent.

ECE Distribution denied an employment relationship, stating the applicant was an independent contractor with Cooney Promotions Inc. The applicant requested to add Cooney Promotions Inc. as an organization respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the application contained allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation by Cooney Promotions Inc. and that adding the party at this early stage would not cause prejudice.

The request to add Cooney Promotions Inc. was granted, and the applicant was directed to provide submissions on why ECE Distribution should remain a respondent.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related injury, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her, harassing her, denying her a raise, disciplining her for attendance issues, and ultimately laying her off and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal found that the employer had accommodated her by providing light duties that met her medical restrictions.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's non-discriminatory explanations that the applicant was disciplined for excessive, unsubstantiated tardiness and early departures, and that she was laid off and terminated due to a severe economic downturn and shortage of work based on her low seniority.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel, a sole practitioner, had a civil trial unexpectedly rescheduled to the same time.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the scheduling issues with the civil trial and the counsel's status as a sole practitioner amounted to extraordinary circumstances, and noting that the applicant had previously been granted a rescheduling request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer and two unions (SEIU and UFCW) based on race, ancestry, place of origin, disability, and sex.

The employer settled.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the unions should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against SEIU because it was filed more than four months past the one-year statutory deadline and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against UFCW because there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the union's alleged failure to represent her properly and any prohibited Code grounds.

The applicant, a foreign-trained dentist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent college's non-exemptible examination requirement for a specialty certificate discriminated against him.

The respondent college requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by its Registration Committee.

The Tribunal found that the Registration Committee process was a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1, that the discrimination issue was essentially the same, and that the applicant had a full opportunity to present his case.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting it is not an appellate body for other tribunals with a public protection mandate.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the decision should be reconsidered under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not clearly explain how his request met the criteria and instead repeated the same arguments made at the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights applications following a summary hearing.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to explain how her requests met the criteria, instead repeating previous arguments and introducing a new, non-Code related issue regarding environmental contamination.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for reconsideration, noting that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue a case.

The applicant, a person with a developmental disability, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her by paying her less than other employees and terminating her employment because of her disability.

The respondents failed to file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the pay differential claim as being out of time, finding it was not a continuing contravention and the delay was not in good faith.

However, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant by terminating her employment because of her disability.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $2,678.50 for lost income, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant, a high school student, was suspended and criminally charged after being found in possession of marijuana and a BB gun on school property.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and family status, claiming he was treated worse than a friend involved in the same incident.

He also alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination allegations at a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no link between the respondents' actions and the prohibited Code grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation on the merits, finding insufficient evidence that a threat was made or that the respondents intended to retaliate for a Code claim.

The applicant attended a scheduled hearing, but the respondents did not, and the hearing proceeded in their absence.

The individual respondent subsequently requested a new hearing, providing evidence that he was out of the country attending his brother's funeral.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' absence was due to an emergency and granted the request for a new hearing.

However, because the respondents failed to notify the Tribunal or the applicant in advance, the new hearing dates were made peremptory to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

During the hearing, the organization respondent failed to appear, and the Tribunal was informed it might be insolvent.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision requesting the organization's status to determine if a stay of proceedings under s. 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act applied.

After receiving a letter indicating the organization's operations had ended due to insolvency and financial decisions were turned over to a bank, the Tribunal ordered the bank's counsel to provide an update on the organization's status and whether a stay is in effect.

The applicant, who has a mental disability, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, and reprisal.

She alleged that the respondents improperly administered a controlled substance to her while she was an outpatient, and that the respondents' counsel breached a previous Tribunal sealing order.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove her Code rights were violated.

The Tribunal also declined the respondents' request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, though it cautioned her regarding future filings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by her former employer and individual respondents following a previous settlement for sexual harassment.

The respondents denied the allegations and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations incredible and internally inconsistent, and noted her failure to provide supporting evidence or identify witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against him based on race by failing to enforce parking by-laws against his White neighbour.

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

The Tribunal found that beyond general allegations of unfairness and pointing out the different races of the neighbours, the applicant had no evidence to link the respondent's alleged inaction to his race.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants, a married couple, alleged that the respondent church discriminated against them and subjected them to reprisal by denying them church membership.

The wife alleged reprisal for previously filing a human rights complaint against the church, while the husband alleged discrimination based on his marital status and association with his wife.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications after the applicants closed their case, finding they failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the church deferred membership because the applicants had lived together prior to marriage, which the church sincerely believed was sinful, and because of ongoing unresolved conflicts and confrontational behaviour by the applicants, rather than for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.