Ken Bhattacharjee

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was waiting for the outcome of a WSIB claim and a union grievance, and because his union representative told him he had two years to file.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting contradictory explanations from the applicant and reiterating that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not justify a delay in filing under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged that she was racially profiled and falsely accused of shoplifting by a plainclothes security guard at a grocery store.

After the applicant presented her evidence at the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues in the applicant's evidence, including contradictions regarding who accompanied her and why she returned items to the shelves.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the employment contract was to be performed in New Brunswick and that the organization's work with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the jurisdiction question could not be determined without full written submissions and supporting documentation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions addressing the 'sufficient connection' test and the test for federal jurisdiction over aeronautics, and deferred consideration of the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending an Employment Standards proceeding.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case with respect to allegations of discipline and lay off/termination, but dismissed the remainder of the allegations.

The hearing was directed to proceed on the remaining issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his age discrimination application for being filed out of time.

The applicant argued that the discriminatory incident occurred in 2009 when he was denied retirement benefits, rather than in 2003 when he began receiving his pension.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and that his new arguments contradicted his original application and the evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin when salespersons at the respondent's store treated her rudely and asked 'What do you want?' upon her entry.

The respondent argued the interaction was a result of language and cultural differences, as the direct translation of a common Mandarin greeting is 'What do you want?'.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove her treatment was linked to her race, colour, or ethnic origin.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his retainer with his previous legal representative had ended and he needed time to prepare and submit required documents.

The respondents consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a change in representation and the need for more preparation time do not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's rules, even when requested on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a restaurant and its owner.

The respondents' response named several additional individuals as respondents.

The owner subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision removing the additional individuals as respondents because there were no allegations against them in the pleadings.

The Tribunal also stayed the proceedings against the restaurant and its owner pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant, a former firefighter whose employment was terminated due to off-duty criminal misconduct, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that the Tribunal erred by denying his late request to call his doctor as an expert witness and by failing to ask him questions to elicit missing factual details about his alcohol addiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant had access to legal advice, failed to provide a credible explanation for his late expert witness request, and had a fair opportunity to present his case without the Tribunal acting as his advocate.

The respondent in four related human rights applications requested an order to defer or hold the hearings in abeyance until three other applications were resolved, arguing overlap in facts and issues.

The respondent's counsel also requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the other applications dealt with discrete events and issues, and that deferral would not be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, noting that counsel failed to request rescheduling within the required five-day period after receiving the hearing notice and that his unavailability did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the university regarding her admission to a master's program and her grades.

The application was filed more than a year after the alleged incidents.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because she only discovered evidence of the discrimination later through freedom of information requests.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant believed she was being discriminated against at the time of the incidents and delayed filing merely to gather evidence to buttress her case, which does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it had discriminated against the applicant.

The respondent argued that the owner was unable to attend the hearing due to a sick child and would have provided determinative evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent had not previously named the owner as a witness, had provided a different excuse for her absence at the original hearing, and was attempting to relitigate the case.

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

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the underlying facts were the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was initiated prior to the application and there was a clear overlap in facts, issues, and remedies.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, sexual orientation, and record of offences, as well as reprisal, after an employment agency refused his job application.

The Application lacked particulars connecting the refusal to the protected grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and the applicant subsequently agreed via email that the matter was not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his employer, his union, and the WSIB.

The WSIB requested that the application against it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was essentially challenging a benefits decision.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions explaining why the application against the WSIB should not be dismissed, the Tribunal found there were no allegations of discrimination against the WSIB and dismissed it as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer and her union representative discriminated against her based on disability by failing to accommodate her.

The individual respondent union representative requested to be removed from the application, noting there were no specific allegations against her and that the union was the subject of a separate application.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the individual respondent as there were no specific allegations of discrimination against her, and ordered her removed as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on a record of offences.

However, the application indicated he had not been discriminated against because of a record of offences under federal or provincial law, and the narrative was essentially a wrongful dismissal claim.

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

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent pension fund, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for retirement benefits.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant began receiving pension benefits without retirement benefits, more than five years before the application was filed.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument of a continuing contravention and found that his delay was not incurred in good faith, given his legal background and prior knowledge of the eligibility conditions.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

After failing to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and failing to file a Reply to the respondent's submissions on jurisdiction and deferral as directed by a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions within five days.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for October 13, 2010.

The applicant failed to comply with disclosure rules and did not attend the hearing.

The respondent attended and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing but decided not to attend.

As the applicant failed to provide evidence in support of his allegations, the application was dismissed.