Bob Ebrahimzadeh

Following the dismissal of the applicants' Charter motion to exclude evidence gathered under a summons, the respondent sought costs.

The parties subsequently agreed to a costs order of $500 against the applicants.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the applicants to pay $500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding a voluntary severance program.

The Divisional Court found that the Board reasonably applied the test for the duty of fair representation, did not misapprehend the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and did not breach the principles of natural justice.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against his former employer, Chrysler, and his union, Unifor.

Chrysler terminated the applicant's employment following an investigation into workplace drugs, and the union subsequently withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application against Chrysler was untimely and if the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application against Chrysler was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the union's decision to withdraw the grievance was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin.

One day prior to the continuation of the hearing, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the application.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed on the eve of the hearing and constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw, noting that no evidence had yet been adduced and the applicant had made clear his intention not to appear.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the human rights application for abuse of process after the self-represented applicant failed to meet deadlines to provide particulars regarding alleged discriminatory remarks.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the respondent had sufficient notice of the core allegations and that any prejudice could be addressed through an adjournment or by restricting the applicant's evidence at the hearing.

The applicant was granted a final five-day extension to file the required particulars.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the human rights hearing because he had to return to work in the afternoon and could not request additional time off as a new employee.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice as its witnesses had taken time off work.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the hearing would have required another day regardless, and ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding the alleged discriminatory remarks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

In a Request for Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought to add his mother and two sisters as applicants.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the allegations pertaining to the family members were outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was originally filed only on behalf of the applicant.

The Tribunal refused to add the mother and sisters as applicants, concluding their allegations did not form part of a series of incidents with the applicant's allegations, were out of time, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also directed that the application continue against a personal respondent who was on pregnancy leave.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the Member set out in a Notice of Hearing.

With the consent of the parties and pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Discipline Committee granted the motion and authorized the withdrawal of the allegations without a hearing.