Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide ordered psychiatric report.

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

During the hearing, the applicant exhibited discourteous and disrespectful behaviour, prompting the adjudicator to order a psychiatric assessment.

After more than two years of extensions and the applicant's relocation to the United States, the applicant failed to provide the required psychiatric report.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, noting the prejudice to the respondents and the Tribunal's duty to dispose of matters fairly and expeditiously.

Garnette Rose v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1716

Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence linking termination to prohibited grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, following the termination of her employment during her probationary period.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking her termination to a prohibited ground, relying only on her perception of discrimination.

The reprisal allegation was also found to be too vague.

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

Murray v. YouthLink, 2015 HRTO 1694

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 7, 2015

Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondent attended and had previously complied with disclosure rules.

Noting the Tribunal's duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and the resources expended by the respondent and the Tribunal, the adjudicator dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

Tiara Rycroft v. Bob Minhas, 2015 HRTO 1654

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 3, 2015

Human rights applications dismissed on preliminary basis for lacking Code-related allegations.

The applicant filed three applications under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisals.

The Tribunal had previously declared the applicant a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications on a preliminary basis, finding it plain and obvious that there were no Code-related allegations against the respondents and that the applications were therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Tom Raba v. Mohammed Jacquesson, Landlord and Tenant Board, and Gail Culver, 2015 HRTO 1641

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 30, 2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application which had been previously deferred pending the outcome of a WSIB proceeding.

Following a decision by the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer, the applicant sought to reactivate the application.

At a preliminary hearing, the respondent requested continued deferral because both parties had appealed the WSIB decision to the WSIAT.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding that it would be premature to decide whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code while the WSIAT appeal, which involved similar issues, was ongoing.

Keith v. GNI Management Group Inc., 2015 HRTO 1619

Michael McCreary

12 cases2000–2019

Kelsey Orth

In Private Practice4 cases2012–2017

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the third day of the hearing on the merits.

The respondents and intervenor attended and requested that the application be dismissed with costs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date but chose not to attend, deeming the application abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted it has no statutory authority to award costs, but suggested the respondents could bill the applicant and raise the issue if the applicant seeks reconsideration.

Campbell v. SST Group of Construction Companies Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1605

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; waiting for other investigations did not constitute good faith delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that workplace harassment led to his wife's suicide.

The application was filed approximately one and a half years after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for investigations by the police, the Ministry of Labour, and the employer to conclude.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

B.B. v. M.R.C.L., 2015 HRTO 1602

Ken Bhattacharjee

Practising Law - Employed43 cases2005–2025

Respondents ordered to file a complete Response to human rights application despite pending timeliness motion.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline, instead filing a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking preliminary dismissal for untimeliness.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a Response.

The Tribunal held that while it has discretion to waive the requirement to file a Response when considering jurisdictional issues, the respondents had not requested such a waiver and there was no reason to grant one.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file a complete Response within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

Bagherian v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2015 HRTO 1590

Richard Miller

Brennagh Smith

In Private Practice52 cases2008–2025

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice32 cases1998–2017

Respondents ordered to file a complete Response before Tribunal determines timeliness of human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding a police stop.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a complete Response.

The Tribunal held that while it has the flexibility to consider jurisdictional issues without a complete Response, a complete Response would assist in determining the timeliness issue in this case.

The respondents were ordered to file a complete Response.

Williams v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1589

Wade Poziomka

55 cases2011–2017

John-Paul Alexandrowicz

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance proceeding regarding disability accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs and subjected her to reprisals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same core issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

Larkin Nero v. Halton District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1586

Siobhan O’Brien

8 cases2011–2016

Charles Hofley

5 cases2009–2015

Ken Bhattacharjee

Practising Law - Employed17 cases2009–2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance proceeding.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with similar allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

Diaper v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2015 HRTO 1561

Melissa Mark

Christopher McClelland

In Private Practice26 cases2009–2025

Ken Bhattacharjee

Not Practising Law7 cases2002–2015

Tribunal grants applicant's unopposed requests to withdraw against one respondent and add another.

The applicant requested to withdraw her human rights application against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and to add Huron Business Development Corporation as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw as it was unopposed.

Applying the test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal allowed the addition of the new corporate respondent, noting the applicant's initial self-represented status and confusion over her employer's identity, the lack of prejudice, and the potential need for a remedial order against the proposed respondent.

The applicant was ordered to file an amended application.

McClinchey v. Regional Tourism Organization Four Inc., 2015 HRTO 1560

Elizabeth Cowie

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice10 cases1996–2021

Human rights application dismissed because the respondent's Membership Committee is protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario after its Membership Committee refused her readmission.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Membership Committee is a statutory administrative tribunal subject to procedural fairness and judicial review.

Therefore, the doctrine of adjudicative immunity applied, placing the Membership Committee's decision outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

McNulty v. Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1550

Daryn M. Jeffries

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance proceeding on same subject matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination after her union had already filed grievances on her behalf regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievances were filed first, dealt with the same subject matter, and were referred to arbitration where the arbitrator had authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

Aryee v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2015 HRTO 1549

Ken Bhattacharjee

Respondents ordered to comply with previous interim decision regarding contact details and amended response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the respondents' failure to fully comply with a previous order.

The respondents had failed to provide the last known email address and telephone number of a co-respondent, and failed to file an amended Response clarifying certain narrative details.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide the contact information and file the amended Response within seven days, failing which the applicant could file a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

Derek Levey v. George’s Restaurant, Donna Kiriakakis and Andy Tan, 2015 HRTO 1538

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice5 cases2005–2024

Tribunal orders proceeding to continue without notice to respondent franchisor after it failed to respond.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently amended it to add the franchisor, Pet Valu Canada Inc., as a respondent.

Pet Valu Canada Inc. failed to file a Response within the directed timeframe and ignored a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the proceeding would continue without further notice to Pet Valu Canada Inc., and deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to participate.

David Kergan v. Bark-er Pets Inc. and Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 1537

Gregory J. Van Berkel

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice66 cases2002–2026

Human rights application dismissed as it was filed over six years outside the limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race after the respondent denied her insurance benefits following a 2004 car accident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2008, making the application over six years late.

As the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Yuli Zhang v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 HRTO 1534

David M. Goodman

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice9 cases2015–2024

Interim decision set aside on consent; applicant permitted to amend application to increase damages claimed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to set aside an earlier interim decision that deemed it to have accepted all allegations due to a failure to file a response.

The respondent claimed it had not received the Tribunal's mailings.

During a case management conference call, the applicant consented to setting aside the interim decision on the condition that he be allowed to amend his application to increase the monetary compensation sought from $5,000 to $10,000.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the interim decision set aside, directed the respondent to file a response, and permitted the amendment to the application.

Wickham v. Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant, 2015 HRTO 1532

Kara Smith

Ken Bhattacharjee

Practising Law - Employed11 cases2007–2017

Human rights application dismissed as untimely because applicant failed to establish good faith delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant admitted the delay but claimed it was due to stress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical or other evidence to establish that her stress rendered her incapable of filing within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Wilson v. Klukach, 2015 HRTO 1531

Leola Pon

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 12, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for being filed one day outside the one-year limitation period without explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The last alleged incident occurred on June 26, 2013, but the application was filed on June 27, 2014, one day outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay and therefore did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

James v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1522

Applicant

Mike NaraineSelf-represented
2 appearances
John InglisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ralph MazeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Tom RabaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mario HawcoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Stanley DombroskieSelf-represented
1 appearance
Barbara HoekstraSelf-represented
1 appearance
Richard ToderanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Henry DelaneySelf-represented
1 appearance
Angela OlaskiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paul RadoiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marcio CabralSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael HarveySelf-represented
1 appearance
Stephanie de KoningSelf-represented
1 appearance
Steven GerredSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ruth CameronSelf-represented
1 appearance
Emile WickhamSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jeffrey KiersSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sharna SugarmanSelf-represented
1 appearance
S.D.Self-represented
1 appearance

Counsel

Peigi RossCounsel
2 appearances
Cathy PhanCounsel
1 appearance
Paula M. RusakCounsel
1 appearance
Cheryl EllisonCounsel
1 appearance
Thomas A. StefanikCounsel
1 appearance
John-Paul AlexandrowiczCounsel
1 appearance
Nadia ChandraCounsel
1 appearance
Stephanie M. RamsayCounsel
1 appearance
Elizabeth TraynorCounsel
1 appearance
Joseph GriffithsCounsel
1 appearance
David M. GoodmanCounsel
1 appearance
Caroline V. (Nini) JonesCounsel
1 appearance
Tyler InksterCounsel
1 appearance
Lily HarmerCounsel
1 appearance
Elizabeth CowieCounsel
1 appearance
Patricia MatusiakCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Applicant

Ernest GuisteCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Respondents

Jennifer FantiniCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

Leola PonCounsel
1 appearance

for Altis Human Resources (Ottawa) Inc.

Cindy SpenceAgent
1 appearance

for Andorra Building Maintenance Ltd.

Michael AlexanderCounsel
1 appearance

for Baywood Homes

Michael A. CohenCounsel
1 appearance

for Beck Taxi Limited

Carl PetersonCounsel
1 appearance
Lauren Chang MacLeanCounsel
1 appearance

for both Applicants

Taleh HuseynovSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Bruce Johnston

Melany FranklinCounsel
1 appearance

for Dr. Victor Wai-Lee Chiu

Yashoda RanganathanCounsel
1 appearance

for himself

Felix MillienSelf-represented
1 appearance
Irfan ButtSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Hurley Corporation, Joe Cunha, Evelyn Hewitt, and Manny Silva

Gavin ClingbineAgent
1 appearance

for IIWI Foods Inc. and Gordon Macleod

Rachel GoldenbergCounsel
1 appearance

for Jodie Huber and Rick Pereira

Kumail KarimjeeCounsel
1 appearance

for Linda Tougas HR Consulting Inc. and Linda Tougas

Dan PalayewCounsel
1 appearance

for Loblaws Inc., Respondent

Gordon FitzgeraldCounsel
1 appearance

for Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative, Julie Murphy, Debbie August-Moffat, Stephen English, Raymond Ouellet, Mark Smith, Napoleon Mulsa, Dum Siziba, and Lisa Forestell

Luke J. SaitesCounsel
1 appearance

for McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited

Russell GrovesCounsel
1 appearance

for Regional Tourism Organization Four Inc. and David Peacock

Christopher McClellandCounsel
1 appearance

for Robert Half International

James D. HeeneyCounsel
1 appearance

for Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union

Bruce PriceCounsel
1 appearance

for Sherilyn Koenig

Jerry RasoCounsel
1 appearance

for Simerra Property Management Inc. and Simcoe Standard Condominium Corporation No. 338

James B. TausendfreundCounsel
1 appearance

for Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Maria McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Organization

Martin CerquaUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Affected Party

Natasha De MennaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Trevor SmithAgent
7 appearances
Self-representedSelf-represented
6 appearances
Mary Jane CampigottoCounsel
5 appearances
Margaret WaySelf-represented
4 appearances
Christine LundyAgent
4 appearances
Victoria ShenCounsel
3 appearances
Collin DolnySelf-represented
3 appearances
Andrea AndersonSelf-represented
3 appearances
Christine LongtinSelf-represented
3 appearances
Susan DevoeSelf-represented
3 appearances
Selwyn PietersSelf-represented
3 appearances
S.D.Self-represented
3 appearances
Melissa MarkCounsel
3 appearances
Cecil NormanAgent
3 appearances
Sean FlahertyCounsel
2 appearances
Corey ChandlerSelf-represented
2 appearances
Clara MathesonCounsel
2 appearances
Ernst GoetzeSelf-represented
2 appearances
Najeem EbrahimiAgent
2 appearances
Richard ClarkeSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicants

Barbara HoekstraSelf-represented
2 appearances
Sharan BasranCounsel
1 appearance
Bradley TruaxAgent
1 appearance
Nicholas MiniganSelf-represented
1 appearance
Shawn WestonAgent
1 appearance
Eric LettsCounsel
1 appearance
Donna WilsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Patrick JamesCounsel
1 appearance
John DoneCounsel
1 appearance
Lori MishibinijimaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

J. James NymanCounsel
1 appearance

for The Christian Reformed Church in North America – Canada Corporation, The Christian Reformed Church in North America, and Classis Hamilton

Sean JacksonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Susan BallantyneCounsel
1 appearance
Laurie KentCounsel
1 appearance
Michael McCrearyCounsel
1 appearance
Howard GoldblattCounsel
1 appearance
Alycia ShawCounsel
1 appearance
Devon PaulCounsel
1 appearance
Pavle MasicCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Nurses' Association

Colin JohnsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Ed HolmesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Intervenor

Katherine FerreiraCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent

Elyse MallinsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Nancy Jammu-TaylorCounsel
6 appearances
Sari SpringerCounsel
4 appearances
Daniel McDonaldCounsel
4 appearances
Erin PorterCounsel
3 appearances
Thomas StefanikCounsel
3 appearances
Carita PereiraCounsel
2 appearances
Christopher BurkettCounsel
2 appearances
Saba ZiaCounsel
2 appearances
Sean JacksonCounsel
2 appearances
Jordana JosephCounsel
2 appearances
Adrian MiedemaCounsel
2 appearances
Andrea YorkCounsel
2 appearances
Samantha ThorntonAgent
2 appearances
Matthew OrchardCounsel
1 appearance
C. April StewartAgent
1 appearance
Lucy SiracoCounsel
1 appearance
Shaheynoor TalukderCounsel
1 appearance
Lorraine PorCounsel
1 appearance
Roy FilionCounsel
1 appearance
Robert J. AtkinsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent 1243564 Ontario Limited o/a Total Scrap Management

Suzanne PorterCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Andrea Sequeira

Nicole ChrolaviciusCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Andriy Tsurkan

Andriy TsurkanSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Anthony Hutchinson

Anthony HutchinsonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc.

Michael HorvatCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Brant Artillery Gunners Club Incorporated

Michael WhiteCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 133

Mona StaplesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Cotton Inc.

Bradley J. TroupCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent DTZ Canada Incorporated

William T. MaccoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent ECE Distribution Ltd. o/a Branded Merchandise and Proposed Respondent Cooney Promotions Inc.

John A. AnnenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent George Cole

Raj AnandCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Giuseppe Alessandro

Richard KestenAgent
1 appearance
Tom GagovskiAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Henry Rivas

Crista ReaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hudson Bay Company

Maria KotsopoulosCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Loblaw Companies Limited

Zoe KingCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Michael Burns

Daniel CondonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Office of the Independent Police Review Director

Jean C.H. IuCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent R.A. Centre

Andrew ListerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Right at Home Realty Inc. Brokerage

Michael WeberAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Rohan Chinniah

Philip KlumakCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Russian Student Association (RSA) at University of Toronto

Valentin SotovAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ryder Truck Rental Canada Ltd.

Andrew BrattCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Lyne LavergneCounsel
3 appearances
John-Paul AlexandrowiczCounsel
3 appearances
Brian SilvaCounsel
2 appearances
Nick StilloSelf-represented
2 appearances
Omo AkintanCounsel
2 appearances
Bruce DormanSelf-represented
2 appearances
Geneviève DebanéCounsel
2 appearances
William BourneSelf-represented
2 appearances
Elaine BourneSelf-represented
2 appearances
Leola PonCounsel
1 appearance
Glenn ChristieCounsel
1 appearance
Laura K. WilliamsCounsel
1 appearance
David TurnerCounsel
1 appearance
Richard WilliamsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Andrew PorterCounsel
1 appearance
Pranavan GaneshalingamSelf-represented
1 appearance
Peter OsborneCounsel
1 appearance
Andrew CooperSelf-represented
1 appearance
Brennagh SmithCounsel
1 appearance
Allison TaylorCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada

Helen NowakCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 2, Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union

Bruce PriceCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, Scott Dart, and Jeff Low

David FosterCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Imrana Jeoffrey and James Hanson

Vicky SattaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Michael McInnis and Constantina Tsilimigras

Jeffrey AndrewCounsel
1 appearance
Andrew MacIsaacCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology, Cynthia Poulin, Amandah Selvey, Reuben Helder, Louise Cowley, and Marjan Ghannad

Chris RutherfordCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Governing Council of the University of Toronto and Vera Bril

Sari SpringerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, Andrew Burford, Olena Duff, Carley Nisbett, John Parker, Chris Palmer, Darren Hodskins, Ron Peever, Barbara Sanders, Brad Plummer, and Cathy Mathews

Anthony DeianaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Stuart Schoeman

Matthew A. FisherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent TD Bank Group

Pierre BitzAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Teamsters Canada Rail Conference – Division 660

Laura ReaumeAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Michelle GibbsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls

Mark MasonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Governing Council of the University of Toronto

Sari SpringerCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent The TDL Group Corporation

James D. HeeneyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Thunder Bay Police Association

Katie RowenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Thunder Bay Police Services Board

Robert EdwardsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board

David GourlayCounsel
1 appearance
Antonella CeddiaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Unifor

Mike ArmstrongAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, Local 175

Marcia BarryCounsel
1 appearance
Erin WallaceCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University Health Network

Naomi MargoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Voysus Group Inc.

Kashif RazaAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent West Park Healthcare Centre

Sarah EvesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent William Blair

Adam GuyCounsel
2 appearances
Lisa CabelCounsel
1 appearance
Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance
Melany FranklinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Catholic District School Board, Desi Smulan and Rose Balmbra

Paul MatthewsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Police Services Board

David GourlayCounsel
1 appearance
Antonella CeddiaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Union

J. James NymanCounsel
1 appearance

for Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP

Lambert BoendersCounsel
1 appearance

for Toronto Cricket Skating and Curling Club

Assunta MazzottaCounsel
1 appearance

for Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair and Larry Sinclair

Ian SolomonCounsel
1 appearance

for United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 1000A

Jeff AndrewCounsel
1 appearance

for United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, Local 175

Marcia BarryCounsel
1 appearance
Erin WallaceCounsel
1 appearance

for United Steelworkers Local 252G

Dale HoggUnion representative
1 appearance

for William Blair

Adam GuyCounsel
1 appearance
Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance

for William Blair, John Moreira and Wayne O’Riordan

Lisa CabelCounsel
1 appearance
Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance

on her own behalf

Katie ConnorSelf-represented
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Christine LongtinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Susan ShawSelf-represented
1 appearance
Manminder JagaitSelf-represented
1 appearance
Malika MounirSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kara FlanaganSelf-represented
1 appearance

On Her Own Behalf

Donna JennerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joanne BlanchetteSelf-represented
1 appearance

On his own behalf

Raymond MortonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Frank QuattrociSelf-represented
1 appearance
Frank PaternoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sona BaruaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jason AndersonSelf-represented
1 appearance
John FlemingSelf-represented
1 appearance
Damola AlabiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dawit TuquaboSelf-represented
1 appearance

On His Own Behalf

Raffaele (Ralph) CapocciSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sona BaruaSelf-represented
1 appearance
John LarkeSelf-represented
1 appearance
John FlemingSelf-represented
1 appearance

Representative

John VaccherAgent
1 appearance

Respondent

John FarantSelf-represented
1 appearance
Christine AshtonCounsel
1 appearance
Prabha HaranSelf-represented
1 appearance
Andrea DenovanCounsel
1 appearance

Respondent/Proposed Intervenor

Shaheen HiraniCounsel
1 appearance

Respondents

William S. CookCounsel
1 appearance

Self-represented

Kelly McNultySelf-represented
1 appearance
Mira FreidinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Leonardo GaluegoSelf-represented
1 appearance

567

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

5.2

cases/mo

HRTO567(100%)

Decision types

motion

508

trial

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Employment and Labour Law

Other Tribunals

Landlord and Tenant

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Real Estate Law

Corporate/Commercial Law

Workers' Compensation

Ken Bhattacharjee

Vice-Chair·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario·Since 2008

567

cases · 10 yrs · HRTO

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 424Adjudicator· 94Vice-chair· 32Vice-Chair· 10Adjudicator· 7

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide ordered psychiatric report.

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

During the hearing, the applicant exhibited discourteous and disrespectful behaviour, prompting the adjudicator to order a psychiatric assessment.

After more than two years of extensions and the applicant's relocation to the United States, the applicant failed to provide the required psychiatric report.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, noting the prejudice to the respondents and the Tribunal's duty to dispose of matters fairly and expeditiously.

Garnette Rose v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1716

Kathryn Bird

In Private Practice43 cases2009–2026

Alycia Shaw

7 cases2014–2015

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 16, 2015

Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence linking termination to prohibited grounds.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking her termination to a prohibited ground, relying only on her perception of discrimination.

The reprisal allegation was also found to be too vague.

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

Murray v. YouthLink, 2015 HRTO 1694

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 7, 2015

Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondent attended and had previously complied with disclosure rules.

Tiara Rycroft v. Bob Minhas, 2015 HRTO 1654

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 3, 2015

Human rights applications dismissed on preliminary basis for lacking Code-related allegations.

The applicant filed three applications under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisals.

The Tribunal had previously declared the applicant a vexatious litigant in a separate proceeding.

Tom Raba v. Mohammed Jacquesson, Landlord and Tenant Board, and Gail Culver, 2015 HRTO 1641

Ken Bhattacharjee

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 30, 2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application which had been previously deferred pending the outcome of a WSIB proceeding.

Following a decision by the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer, the applicant sought to reactivate the application.

At a preliminary hearing, the respondent requested continued deferral because both parties had appealed the WSIB decision to the WSIAT.

Keith v. GNI Management Group Inc., 2015 HRTO 1619

Michael McCreary

12 cases2000–2019

Kelsey Orth

In Private Practice4 cases2012–2017

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the third day of the hearing on the merits.

The respondents and intervenor attended and requested that the application be dismissed with costs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing date but chose not to attend, deeming the application abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted it has no statutory authority to award costs, but suggested the respondents could bill the applicant and raise the issue if the applicant seeks reconsideration.

Campbell v. SST Group of Construction Companies Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1605

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; waiting for other investigations did not constitute good faith delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that workplace harassment led to his wife's suicide.

The application was filed approximately one and a half years after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for investigations by the police, the Ministry of Labour, and the employer to conclude.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

B.B. v. M.R.C.L., 2015 HRTO 1602

Ken Bhattacharjee

Practising Law - Employed43 cases2005–2025

Respondents ordered to file a complete Response to human rights application despite pending timeliness motion.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline, instead filing a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking preliminary dismissal for untimeliness.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a Response.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file a complete Response within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

Bagherian v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2015 HRTO 1590

Richard Miller

Brennagh Smith

In Private Practice52 cases2008–2025

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice32 cases1998–2017

Respondents ordered to file a complete Response before Tribunal determines timeliness of human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding a police stop.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response and a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss the application as untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an RFOP requesting the respondents be ordered to file a complete Response.

The Tribunal held that while it has the flexibility to consider jurisdictional issues without a complete Response, a complete Response would assist in determining the timeliness issue in this case.

The respondents were ordered to file a complete Response.

Williams v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1589

Wade Poziomka

55 cases2011–2017

John-Paul Alexandrowicz

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance proceeding regarding disability accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs and subjected her to reprisals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same core issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

Larkin Nero v. Halton District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1586

Siobhan O’Brien

8 cases2011–2016

Charles Hofley

5 cases2009–2015

Ken Bhattacharjee

Practising Law - Employed17 cases2009–2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance proceeding.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with similar allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

Diaper v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2015 HRTO 1561

Melissa Mark

Christopher McClelland

In Private Practice26 cases2009–2025

Ken Bhattacharjee

Not Practising Law7 cases2002–2015

Tribunal grants applicant's unopposed requests to withdraw against one respondent and add another.

The applicant requested to withdraw her human rights application against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and to add Huron Business Development Corporation as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw as it was unopposed.

The applicant was ordered to file an amended application.

McClinchey v. Regional Tourism Organization Four Inc., 2015 HRTO 1560

Elizabeth Cowie

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice10 cases1996–2021

Human rights application dismissed because the respondent's Membership Committee is protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario after its Membership Committee refused her readmission.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Membership Committee is a statutory administrative tribunal subject to procedural fairness and judicial review.

Therefore, the doctrine of adjudicative immunity applied, placing the Membership Committee's decision outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

McNulty v. Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1550

Daryn M. Jeffries

Ken Bhattacharjee

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance proceeding on same subject matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination after her union had already filed grievances on her behalf regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

Aryee v. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2015 HRTO 1549

Ken Bhattacharjee

Respondents ordered to comply with previous interim decision regarding contact details and amended response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the respondents' failure to fully comply with a previous order.

The respondents had failed to provide the last known email address and telephone number of a co-respondent, and failed to file an amended Response clarifying certain narrative details.

Derek Levey v. George’s Restaurant, Donna Kiriakakis and Andy Tan, 2015 HRTO 1538

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice5 cases2005–2024

Tribunal orders proceeding to continue without notice to respondent franchisor after it failed to respond.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently amended it to add the franchisor, Pet Valu Canada Inc., as a respondent.

Pet Valu Canada Inc. failed to file a Response within the directed timeframe and ignored a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

David Kergan v. Bark-er Pets Inc. and Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 1537

Gregory J. Van Berkel

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice66 cases2002–2026

Human rights application dismissed as it was filed over six years outside the limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race after the respondent denied her insurance benefits following a 2004 car accident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2008, making the application over six years late.

As the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Yuli Zhang v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 HRTO 1534

David M. Goodman

Ken Bhattacharjee

In Private Practice9 cases2015–2024

Interim decision set aside on consent; applicant permitted to amend application to increase damages claimed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to set aside an earlier interim decision that deemed it to have accepted all allegations due to a failure to file a response.

The respondent claimed it had not received the Tribunal's mailings.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the interim decision set aside, directed the respondent to file a response, and permitted the amendment to the application.

Wickham v. Hong Shing Chinese Restaurant, 2015 HRTO 1532

Kara Smith

Ken Bhattacharjee

Practising Law - Employed11 cases2007–2017

Human rights application dismissed as untimely because applicant failed to establish good faith delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant admitted the delay but claimed it was due to stress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical or other evidence to establish that her stress rendered her incapable of filing within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Wilson v. Klukach, 2015 HRTO 1531

Leola Pon

Ken Bhattacharjee