Ken Bhattacharjee

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

She subsequently requested to amend her application to add the franchisee, Store #1107, as an organization respondent and remove the franchisor, Edible Arrangements Inc. The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent and found that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation against the store owner, which would impose deemed liability on the store.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting it was made early in the process with no identified prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that he was terminated while on disability leave.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant requested an order to amend his application to include allegations of harassment based on incidents already mentioned in the pleadings.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that no hearing had been scheduled, the amendments related to previously mentioned incidents, and the respondent demonstrated no actual prejudice.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation, with her sister advising she was hospitalized.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to explain her absence and indicate whether she wished to reschedule.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a formal notice warning that the file would be closed, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her physician based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and disability.

She had previously filed an identical complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the College proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the College complaint was filed first, was at a more advanced stage, and involved identical allegations, raising the potential for duplication and inconsistent findings.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the individual respondents from the application and to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction and untimeliness.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them as the corporate respondent was liable for their conduct.

The Tribunal also found that allegations overlapping with a previous Commission complaint were barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request to dismiss the application for untimeliness, finding it was filed within one year of the last incident in a series.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former co-worker.

The respondent provided her employer's contact information but subsequently left her employment.

The Tribunal ordered the former employer, Mount Dennis Medical Group, to provide the respondent's current or last known contact information to facilitate the proceedings, relieving the applicant from the strict requirement to file a formal request for an order during proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace harassment and reprisal by the respondents.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the allegations did not relate to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application contained only general allegations of harassment and reprisal without linking them to any Code grounds.

As the Tribunal only has jurisdiction over disputes involving Code violations, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination against her employer and several individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against all individual respondents except one, as the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against those individuals.

Additionally, noting a concurrent union grievance, the Tribunal requested written submissions from the parties and the union on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance's conclusion.

The applicant filed three separate human rights applications against the respondents relating to the same events.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated and subsequently dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a recent grievance arbitration decision appropriately dealt with their substance.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the three applications due to common issues of fact and law.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear oral submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss the consolidated application under s. 45.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of his disability against his employer, his union, and the WSIB.

The respondents requested that the HRTO defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The HRTO dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the main issues and timeframes before the WSIAT and the HRTO were different, as the WSIAT proceeding focused on the period up to February 2007, while the HRTO application focused on the accommodation process from September 2007 onwards.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and sex, related to her suspension and subsequent termination after taking pregnancy and parental leave.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year statutory deadline under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant's employment was terminated, or at the latest when she should have reasonably discovered it at the end of her leave.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay in filing was not incurred in good faith, as she failed to contact the respondent for nearly two and a half years after her suspension and showed willful blindness.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, which overlapped with an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal previously declined to defer the application because the union had placed the grievance in abeyance.

After the grievance was subsequently referred to arbitration, the respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's interim decision.

The Tribunal noted that reconsideration is only available for final decisions, but exercised its discretion under its Rules of Procedure to treat the filing as a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant and his union to file written submissions on whether the application should now be deferred.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination application against a mental health service.

She alleged new evidence regarding coerced drug use and a breach of a sealing order by the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the allegations did not constitute new evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the merits of the original decision.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed he was unable to attend due to 'cold like symptoms' and disagreed with the Tribunal's interim directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicant's medical excuse highly suspect and unsupported by evidence, and noting his history of failing to attend hearings and recent declaration as a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment, housing, and services.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding the same incidents.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings of fact and law.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a misconduct investigation under the Police Services Act and a grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the misconduct investigation was only at the investigation stage and focused on alleged misconduct rather than human rights issues, and the grievance was being held in abeyance.

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

The applicant resided in Québec, the workplace was in Québec, and the alleged incidents occurred in Québec and England.

The applicant argued the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the corporate respondent's parent company was based in Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction as the employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the applicant's employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as her employer's place of business, her residence, and her usual place of employment were outside the province.

In her reconsideration request, the applicant argued that the corporate respondents had ties to Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how her request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, and that even if her factual assertions were true, they would not be sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the applicant's employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as her employer's place of business and her usual place of employment were outside the province.

In her reconsideration request, the applicant argued that the corporate respondents had significant ties to Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how her request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and was merely attempting to reargue her case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the applicant's employment lacked a sufficient connection to Ontario, as she resided and worked outside the province.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how her request met the criteria under Rule 26.5 and merely attempted to reargue her case.