Ken Bhattacharjee

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment, discrimination, and reprisal by her union and co-workers following a previous human rights complaint.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to link the alleged harassment and discrimination to any Code grounds, and that statements made in the union's reconsideration request were protected by absolute privilege.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect the applicant could prove the union intended to retaliate against her for claiming her Code rights, given the ongoing labour relations conflict and the fact that co-workers were unaware of her initial complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her former employer.

The respondent requested summary dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress and while of unsound mind, but failed to provide medical evidence to support this claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-release allegations as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the post-release reprisal allegations, finding them to be merely speculative with no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against the employer and union.

The employer requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, citing a prior arbitration decision.

The union requested dismissal on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success.

In response, the applicant filed a Notice of Constitutional Question arguing s. 45.1 violates s. 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine the dismissal requests and the constitutional question, and provided instructions for the Attorneys General should they choose to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and creed by his former employer, a professional association, and others, relating to events between 2000 and 2007.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the continuing effects of a negative reference did not constitute a continuing contravention.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the seven to eight-year delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant was sophisticated and aware of his options for pursuing his rights.

The applicant, a resident of Manitoba employed by a federal government agency in Winnipeg, filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status.

She alleged that an Ontario-based independent contractor provided discriminatory advice to her manager, leading to her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as the employer's place of business, the applicant's residence, and her usual place of employment were all outside the province.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents initially requested that the application be dismissed for falling under federal jurisdiction, or deferred pending an Employment Standards proceeding.

After the Tribunal requested written submissions on the jurisdictional issue, the respondents withdrew their requests.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted its jurisdiction and directed the application to proceed in the normal course.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the individual respondent, a store manager, from the human rights application and to revise the deadline for disclosing expert witnesses.

The applicant alleged the manager assaulted him and made discriminatory comments about his disability during a dispute over groceries.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to remove the individual respondent, finding his alleged conduct was the central issue in the case.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to revise the expert witness disclosure deadline as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response to the Application despite being served and receiving an earlier interim decision warning him of the consequences.

He later emailed the Tribunal stating he agreed with the other respondents' Response and did not wish to participate.

The Tribunal deemed him to have waived all rights to participate in the proceeding, but did not deem him to have accepted the allegations in the Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the initial application failed to connect the alleged mistreatment to Code grounds.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant's counsel that explicitly connected the mistreatment to the applicant's race and named a supporting witness, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents and denied the applicant's request to withhold the witness's name, noting the witness is protected from reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

The respondents requested an adjournment on the first day of the hearing, claiming their representative never received the Confirmation of Hearing Notice due to a change in mailing address.

Although the representative showed a lack of due diligence, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to avoid prejudice to the respondents, noting the other parties consented.

The Tribunal also issued case assessment directions, varying the Rules to allow the unrepresented applicant to submit a witness list and suggesting she consider calling her family physician.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to maintain current contact information with the Tribunal.

Mail was returned as moved and the provided telephone number was out of service.

After the applicant failed to respond to a final notice warning of abandonment, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a part-time cook/cleaner at a parish, took an eight-month leave of absence after sustaining physical injuries at another job.

When she attempted to return to work, the parish pastor informed her that her employment was terminated and her replacement would be kept on.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant because of her disability by failing to accommodate her return to work and terminating her employment.

The age discrimination allegation was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered human rights training and policy updates.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by the respondent organization on the basis of creed, sexual orientation, and perceived disability.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's chair made an anti-Christian comment, that the organization was dominated by Jewish and lesbian members who denied her an executive position, and that she was filmed without consent.

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

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for anonymity, emphasizing the principle of open justice.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to allow her time to consult with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

She claimed that a personal injury prevented her from scheduling an earlier appointment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had over two months to prepare and that the medical documentation provided did not indicate her injury impaired her ability to prepare for or participate in the hearing.

The circumstances were not deemed extraordinary as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

Two bartenders filed human rights applications against their employer, a veterans' club, and its directing officers.

The first applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after she took a medical leave for depression and diabetes.

The Tribunal found the respondents discriminated against her by demoting her, demanding she be symptom-free to return to work, publicly posting her confidential medical information, and laying her off.

The respondents also engaged in reprisal by demanding a meeting about unsubstantiated complaints and filing a false police report against her after she initiated human rights proceedings.

The second applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, sex (pregnancy), and association.

The Tribunal found the respondents failed to accommodate her back injury, reduced her hours due to her pregnancy, and suspended her and filed a false police report against her because of her association with the first applicant.

The Tribunal awarded significant monetary compensation for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training and the implementation of a human rights policy.

In an interim decision prior to a human rights hearing, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues regarding disclosure and hearing format.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with document disclosure rules and to produce specific arguably relevant documents, though it denied the applicant's overly broad request for her entire personnel file.

Both parties were ordered to file amended witness statements that fully comply with Rule 17.

Finally, the Tribunal permitted the applicant's social worker to testify by teleconference but required her doctor to testify in person because his evidence was key and raised significant credibility issues.

The individual respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his Response.

The applicant consented to the request, and the organization respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on marital status and receipt of public assistance after being denied start-up benefits for housing.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had appealed the denial to the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), which was currently considering the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the SBT had the authority to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code and there was a clear overlap in facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the SBT appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and WSIAT regarding decisions made about his statutory benefits.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it does not have jurisdiction to review the content, reasons, and results of decisions made by other statutory tribunals, as these do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance would not address the substance of the application and did not include all allegations.

The respondents supported deferral to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, finding it the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the overlap in facts and the advanced stage of the grievance.