Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 13, 2011

Tribunal denies respondents' premature request for applicant's medical records prior to filing Response.

The respondents requested an order directing the applicant to consent to the disclosure of her medical and insurance records before filing their Response to her human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents did not require the documents to file a Response and that the request was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response within 35 days.

De Wit v. City of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2234

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 9, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the facts giving rise to the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Ricard v. Almonte General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 2226

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 8, 2011

Deferred human rights application reactivated following withdrawal of related labour board proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided a consent order demonstrating that the related proceeding had been withdrawn.

As the related proceeding was no longer underway and the respondent did not oppose the request, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

Gerard Dunphy v. Primary Response Inc., 2011 HRTO 2222

Brian Cook

Respondents given 10 days to file a response to human rights application or face default proceedings.

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

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted.

Uzoma Nwafor v. Wellesley Central Place and Louise Moran, 2011 HRTO 2197

Brian Cook

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned; respondent's request for costs denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to participate in the process or provide updated contact information.

The Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant was returned as undeliverable, and the applicant did not respond to multiple requests for updated information.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent's request for legal expenses was denied, as the Tribunal lacks the statutory authority to award costs.

Jonathan Schrock v. Lanmar Environmental Solutions Inc., 2011 HRTO 2192

Brian Cook

Deferred human rights application reactivated after related OLRB proceeding withdrawn.

The applicant requested the reactivation of a human rights application that had been deferred pending a related proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided evidence that the related proceeding had been withdrawn.

As the related proceeding was the sole reason for the deferral, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

J.C. v. Smylie’s Independent Grocers, 2011 HRTO 2189

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 1, 2011

Human rights application filed on Monday following a Saturday deadline was filed in time.

The applicant filed a human rights application on Monday, February 28, 2011, alleging the last discriminatory event occurred on February 26, 2010.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant submitted that because February 26, 2011 fell on a Saturday, the time limit was extended to the next business day pursuant to section 89(2) of the Legislation Act, 2006.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed out of time, and directed that the application be processed.

Watson v. Transgear Manufacturing, a Division of Linamar Holdings, 2011 HRTO 2162

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 22, 2011

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend hearing or respond to directions.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to participate within three weeks, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had decided not to pursue the matter and dismissed the application as abandoned.

Sandy Sampaio v. 1541094 Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 2115

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent WSIB proceedings regarding workplace accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a work-related repetitive strain injury.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB has the authority to consider the accommodation issues and that proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings and be unfair to the parties.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB process.

Anand v. Coppley Corp. and Dorothy Anderson, 2011 HRTO 2055

Brian Cook

Tribunal declined to defer human rights application pending WSIB process due to unclear claim status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing both a non-work-related foot injury and a work-related arm injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending a related WSIB process.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the status of the WSIB claim was unclear and it was uncertain whether the WSIB was adjudicating the subject-matter of the application.

The respondent was ordered to file a Response.

Fray v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2011 HRTO 2045

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending resolution of related Superior Court proceeding regarding co-op by-laws.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, family status, marital status, and age, arising from the respondents' enforcement of co-op by-laws regarding residency.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of their related application before the Superior Court of Justice seeking to evict the applicant's roommate.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that concurrent proceedings could result in inconsistent findings of fact or law, as both matters require an interpretation of the co-op by-laws.

Lee-Ann Turner on behalf of Christopher Ansell v. Brant Park Co-Op, 2011 HRTO 2052

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the facts and human rights issues substantially overlapped with ongoing union grievances filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondent and the union agreed to the deferral, while the applicant did not reply.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

Miriam Grandison v. Region of Peel, 2011 HRTO 2047

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 7, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of WSIB and WSIAT appeal processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB failed to accommodate her disability regarding her labour market re-entry plan.

The WSIB requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending the outcome of internal WSIB and WSIAT appeals.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the completion of the WSIB and WSIAT appeal processes, noting that those bodies have jurisdiction to address the human rights issues raised.

Bradley v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2011 HRTO 2021

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 1, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant did not oppose deferral, and the respondent agreed to it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its general practice for concurrent proceedings.

Colleen O’Reilly v. Regional Municipality of Durham – Durham Region EMS, 2011 HRTO 1975

Blair McCreadie

17 cases2000–2015

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 26, 2011

Reconsideration granted and dismissal set aside where applicant's memory impairment caused failure to attend hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant provided medical evidence confirming a learning disability and memory impairment, which caused her to confuse the hearing date.

The Tribunal found that these circumstances outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the dismissal.

Woodwork v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, 2011 HRTO 1929

Leola Pon

Practising Law - Employed11 cases2007–2017

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 24, 2011

Human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in ESL program dismissed at summary hearing.

The applicant, a student in an ESL program, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal after complaining about class size and his teacher.

At a summary hearing, the applicant sought to amend his application to add place of origin as a ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the amendment, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application in its entirety, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant had no evidence linking his treatment to his age, and the alleged reprisal did not stem from the assertion of human rights.

Bakhtier Shakhnazarov v. George Brown College, 2011 HRTO 1917

Susan Munn

Not Practising Law89 cases2008–2020

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 19, 2011

Human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discriminatory termination dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a former Support Clerk at the Ministry of Finance, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of age, race, colour, and place of origin after her position was declared surplus during a restructuring.

She claimed co-workers mumbled around her desk and bullied her, and that her termination was motivated by discriminatory preferences.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the alleged harassment or the decision to declare her position surplus were related to any Code-protected grounds.

The respondents provided credible evidence that the restructuring was based on changing business needs and technology.

Morris v. Ontario (Finance), 2011 HRTO 1889

Jinan Kubursi

30 cases2001–2017

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 18, 2011

Tribunal finds age discrimination based on manager's comments encouraging older employee to retire.

The applicant, a 60-year-old public servant on secondment, alleged age discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment after she was not selected for a permanent position and subsequently retired.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's manager discriminated against her on the basis of age by repeatedly encouraging her to retire and discouraging her from applying for the permanent position.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the hiring process itself was discriminatory, that a poisoned work environment was created, and that the employer failed to properly investigate her internal complaint.

The hearing was bifurcated, and a subsequent hearing was ordered to determine damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect arising from the discriminatory comments.

Deane v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 1863

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 13, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process, and the applicant did not object.

The Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

McFarlane v. Peel Halton Dufferin Acquired Brain Injury Services, 2011 HRTO 1862

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 7, 2011

Human rights application deferred on consent pending completion of related union grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance and a pending appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

Both parties agreed that the application should be deferred.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process pursuant to Rule 14.1.

Michael DesRochers v. A.G. Simpson Inc. and Deborah Mauik, 2011 HRTO 1824

Applicant

Mary FerrariSelf-represented
2 appearances
David VizcayaSelf-represented
2 appearances
Angela PapanicolopoulouSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mario BanaagSelf-represented
1 appearance
Hina LiaqatSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael NgSelf-represented
1 appearance
Shihab TahaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kenneth MuiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lilie YingSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michele Van BauwelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Anna DeaneSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donna CameronSelf-represented
1 appearance
Robert SmithSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kevin CavanaghSelf-represented
1 appearance
Eugenia MoralesSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kyle BordenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sherifat OgunyeSelf-represented
1 appearance
David CurtisSelf-represented
1 appearance
John McLeodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Carlton GerrickSelf-represented
1 appearance

counsel

Justin McLartyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel

Anthony SpadaforaCounsel
1 appearance
Nasrudin MuminCounsel
1 appearance
Helen DanielCounsel
1 appearance
Victor YeeCounsel
1 appearance
Paul RochfordCounsel
1 appearance
Lori MishibinijimaCounsel
1 appearance
Blair McCreadieCounsel
1 appearance
Kimberly MorrisCounsel
1 appearance
Naomi LoewithCounsel
1 appearance
Natalia PolisCounsel
1 appearance
Sari SpringerCounsel
1 appearance
Malcolm MacKillopCounsel
1 appearance
Ira GreenspoonCounsel
1 appearance
Bharat KapoorCounsel
1 appearance
George VuicicCounsel
1 appearance
David DanielsonCounsel
1 appearance
Dianne JozefackiCounsel
1 appearance
Mark RowlinsonCounsel
1 appearance
Michelle KellyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Human Resources Professional Association and Rebecca Durcan

Erica RichlerCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Loblaw Companies Limited

McLean WoodCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Ontario College of Nurses, Proposed Respondent

Prya MorleyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission

David RossCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

Paul RochfordCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the respondent United Steelworkers, Local 7135

Cathy BakerCounsel
1 appearance

for Alana Miller

Mark EllisCounsel
1 appearance

for AuRico Gold Inc.

Michael TorranceCounsel
1 appearance

for Carillion Services Inc.

Daniel ShieldsCounsel
1 appearance

for Caroline Roncadin

Amanda SmallwoodCounsel
1 appearance

for CAW

Anthony DaleCounsel
1 appearance

for Chrysler Canada

Clifford HartCounsel
1 appearance

for Complex Services Inc.

Paul PingueCounsel
1 appearance

for Contact Niagara for Children’s and Developmental Services and Todd Mason

Lonny RosenCounsel
2 appearances

for Corrine Long

Raj AnandCounsel
1 appearance

for CUPE

Ryan GoldvineUnion representative
1 appearance
Susan BallantyneCounsel
1 appearance

for CUPE, Interested party

Fred HoUnion representative
1 appearance

for CUPE Local 3166 and CUPE Local 5200

Elizabeth NurseCounsel
1 appearance

for Deborah DeGroot

Deborah DeGrootSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Delta Bingo Inc.

Sabatina VassalliCounsel
1 appearance

for Dufferin Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 22

Michelle KellyCounsel
1 appearance

for F Janzen Drug Limited

Derek ZulianelloCounsel
1 appearance

for Frank Smith

Anna MatasCounsel
1 appearance

for Gomez Sebastian and Tobias Abell

Mahi KeyvaniAgent
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario

Anita LyonCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Education

Daniel HuffakerCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Government Services

Stuart McMahonCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

Bruce EllisCounsel
1 appearance

for herself

Elizabeth LewisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chantelle SulaimanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kirenia LindsaySelf-represented
1 appearance
Miranda PavelicSelf-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Tom SteersSelf-represented
1 appearance
David LawsonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Honywell Safety Products

Sven PoysaCounsel
1 appearance

for Kinark Child and Family Services

Sabatina VassalliCounsel
2 appearances

for Laird Constructors

Scott ThompsonCounsel
1 appearance

for Loblaw Companies Limited and MacLean Wood

MacLean WoodCounsel
1 appearance

for Mahdi Keyvani

Mahdi KeyvaniSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Margaret De Wit

Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Marty Burke

Marty BurkeSelf-represented
1 appearance

former representative for the Applicant

Leonard ReeceAgent
1 appearance

for Niagara Hospitality Hotels Inc.

Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Norfolk County, Norview Lodge, Kim Jenereaux, and Cindy Arn

Ryan ConlinCounsel
1 appearance

for Ontario Charitable Gaming Association

Michael LiptonCounsel
1 appearance

for Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

M. David RossCounsel
1 appearance
Tom MoutsatsosCounsel
1 appearance

for Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Hugh O’ReillyCounsel
1 appearance

for OPSEU

David WrightCounsel
1 appearance

for OPSEU Pension Trust

Ari KaplanCounsel
1 appearance

for Petro Canada

Susan MetzlerCounsel
1 appearance

for Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Helen Eby, Diana Ulett, Jacqueline Williams, Canday Wilts, Jean Shearer, Leanne Brooker, Kasia Znaniecki, and Patricia Wagler

Carl PetersonCounsel
1 appearance
Megan BealCounsel
1 appearance

for Scapa Tapes North America

Paula RusakCounsel
1 appearance

for Scapa Tapes North America and United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial Local 6946-I

Katrina PeddleCounsel
1 appearance

for SEIU, Local 1 Canada

Karen WalshUnion representative
1 appearance

for Sheraton Gateway Hotel and Andrew Simmers

Donna D’AndreaCounsel
1 appearance

for Stevens Resource Group Inc.

Elizabeth TraynorCounsel
1 appearance

for St. John's

Lena VartanianCounsel
1 appearance

for the applicant

Glen MorrisonParalegal
1 appearance
Brenda CulbertAgent
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Christine LundyParalegal
6 appearances
John BartolomeoCounsel
5 appearances
Osborne BarnwellCounsel
4 appearances
Andrew SpragueSelf-represented
4 appearances
Glen MorrisonAgent
4 appearances
Shawn WestonParalegal
4 appearances
Beth WaldenCounsel
4 appearances
David VizcayaSelf-represented
3 appearances
Andrew PintoCounsel
3 appearances
Audrey VassellSelf-represented
3 appearances
Duane MyersSelf-represented
3 appearances
Victor YeeCounsel
3 appearances
George CarterSelf-represented
3 appearances
Donald CampbellSelf-represented
3 appearances
Alan BoswellSelf-represented
2 appearances
Irby ShepherdSelf-represented
2 appearances
Self-representedSelf-represented
2 appearances
Michael MooreSelf-represented
2 appearances
Ella VenholaCounsel
2 appearances
Daniel ParsonsSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicants

Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michelle BoyceSelf-represented
1 appearance
Roger MooreSelf-represented
1 appearance
Randy WeaverSelf-represented
1 appearance
Timothy WhiteSelf-represented
1 appearance
Laura WhiteSelf-represented
1 appearance
Brenda CulbertCounsel
1 appearance
Berhane TsehayeSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Canadian Addiction Treatment Centres LP

Peter DudaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan

Anthony GuindonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4807

David SteeleCounsel
1 appearance

for the College of Ontario Surgeons of Ontario

Monica TessierCounsel
1 appearance

for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Shemin ManjiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Halton Catholic District School Board

Brenda BowlbyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervener

Frank ReynoldsUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Stephanie HobbsCounsel
2 appearances
Paul O’RyanCounsel
2 appearances
Jessica HoffmanCounsel
1 appearance
David WrightCounsel
1 appearance
Brian AshtonCounsel
1 appearance
Gordon HumSelf-represented
1 appearance
Graham MartetteUnion representative
1 appearance
Michele Hamilton MayersCounsel
1 appearance
Jenifer JoplingCounsel
1 appearance
Catherine DavisCounsel
1 appearance
Shaheen HiraniCounsel
1 appearance
Aaron NeavesUnion representative
1 appearance
Katherine RowenCounsel
1 appearance
Heather Ann McConnellCounsel
1 appearance
Risa PancerCounsel
1 appearance
Piper HendersonCounsel
1 appearance
Ken DamUnion representative
1 appearance
Robert ChampagneCounsel
1 appearance
Jorge HurtadoCounsel
1 appearance
Mary Catherine ChambersCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor York Regional Police Association

Bruce PriceCounsel
1 appearance

for The Law Foundation, Marion Boyd, and Chris Thomas

Elizabeth ForsterCounsel
1 appearance

for The Law Society of Upper Canada and Thomas Conway

Dolores BarbiniCounsel
1 appearance

for the Male Faculty Member

Ross WellsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services

Cheryl EllisonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Stewart McMahonCounsel
1 appearance

for the numbered company

Jeffery KerbelAgent
1 appearance

for the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, Respondent

Lynette D’SouzaCounsel
1 appearance

for the organizational respondent and the other personal respondents

Douglas AbrahamCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed intervenor

Melissa KronickCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Personal Respondent

Simon-Pierre PaquetteCounsel
1 appearance

for the proposed respondent

Heather AldenUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent

Kylie Crawford Ten BrookCounsel
1 appearance
Daryl CukiermanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Greg BullenCounsel
5 appearances
Erica CappelloCounsel
3 appearances
Christopher RiggsCounsel
3 appearances
Andrew BrattCounsel
3 appearances
Colin YoungmanCounsel
3 appearances
David PatacairkCounsel
2 appearances
Kate DeardenCounsel
2 appearances
Mathieu DuceppeCounsel
2 appearances
Roy FilionCounsel
2 appearances
Seann McAleeseCounsel
2 appearances
Frank AngelettiCounsel
2 appearances
Samantha CrumbCounsel
2 appearances
Marnie CorboldCounsel
2 appearances
Jessica YoungCounsel
2 appearances
Evan VanDykCounsel
2 appearances
Daniel ChodosCounsel
2 appearances
Michael HorvatCounsel
2 appearances
Antonella CeddiaCounsel
2 appearances
Indira SawhCounsel
2 appearances
David WhittenCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent 1243564 Ontario Limited

Kathleen AndrewCounsel
1 appearance

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

Kathleen AndrewCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 87

Gavin LeebCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent CAW

Anthony DaleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Chrysler Canada

Clifford HartCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Chrysler Canada Inc.

Cliff HartCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent City of Hamilton

Brenda GloverCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, Clint Williams

Thomas SargeantAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Francisco José De Andrade

Francisco José De AndradeSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Community Care Access Centre

Katharine ByrickCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hamilton Police Association

Joshua PhillipsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hamilton Police Services Board

Marco VisentiniCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Henry Rivas

Crista ReaCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General

Fatema DadaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital

Kate DeardenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Howard Hurwitz

Amanda SmallwoodCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Mary Powell

Susan TothCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Maxine Straker

Maxine StrakerSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Michael Rogozinsky

Michael RogozinskySelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent ParaMed Home Health Care

Shikha SharmaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation

David PomerCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent, Prescott Standard Condominium Corporation No. 19

Mitchell RobinsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership dba Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club

Arlen SternbergCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondents

Mr. LaplanteCounsel
1 appearance
Catherine PetersCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Susan MunnCounsel
4 appearances
Erin PorterCounsel
3 appearances
Patty MurrayCounsel
3 appearances
Nancy Jammu-TaylorCounsel
2 appearances
Mathew MihailovichCounsel
2 appearances
Catherine PetersCounsel
2 appearances
Ellen LowCounsel
2 appearances
David GourlayCounsel
2 appearances
Kristin TaylorCounsel
2 appearances
Robert StewartAgent
2 appearances
Michelle AltonCounsel
2 appearances
Jean Leslie MarentetteCounsel
2 appearances
Philip GrahamCounsel
1 appearance
Tom MoutsatsosCounsel
1 appearance
Laura CassianiCounsel
1 appearance
Kate DeardenCounsel
1 appearance
David GoodmanCounsel
1 appearance
Chris EamesCounsel
1 appearance
Tim LawsonCounsel
1 appearance
Junny LoSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondents, 2447127 Ontario Inc.

Thomas SchoenleberParalegal
1 appearance

for the Respondents Karim Zahraei and Roghaiyeh Salmani Farmand

Aysan ZahraeiAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondents Sabeena Misra, L. Atwood, France Fernando, Angela Novena, David Adekoya, Roy Diklich, Curtis Fedoruk and Adewale Akinisotu

Helen RichardsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Service Employees International Union Canada Local 1, Christine Gilbert and Mike Newell

Mike NewellUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Respondent, Stevens Resource Group

Elizabeth TraynorCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Corporation of Norfolk County, Norview Lodge, Kim Jenereaux and Jill Thompson

Ryan ConlinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board and Kirk Marshall

Stephen MaioCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The City of Thunder Bay

M. FricotCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay

Mandy FricotCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Paula RuzakCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ticketmaster Canada LP

Stuart SvonkinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Electric Model Aviation Club

Simon HinchcliffeAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board

Andrea DenovanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1919

Bradley ChaplickCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2471

Jessica HoffmanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Unifor and its Local 1285

Anthony DaleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University Health Network – Toronto Western Hospital

Lee LenkinskiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Windsor Regional Hospital

Paula TrattnerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Gurjit BrarCounsel
1 appearance

for the Service Employees International Union Canada, Local 1

Mike NewellUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Toronto District School Board

Wendy LopezCounsel
1 appearance

for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Agnes WintersingerAgent
1 appearance
Greg BullenCounsel
1 appearance

for Unifor

Piper HendersonCounsel
1 appearance

for Unifor Local 1106, Karrie Mercier and Bill McLachlan

Kathryn BellCounsel
1 appearance

for United Steelworkers

Shaheen HiraniCounsel
1 appearance

for V.H. Fuels Inc.

Eric AmodeoCounsel
1 appearance

for Vince Kerrio

William HayterCounsel
1 appearance

for York University

Joanna RainbowCounsel
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Catherine ChanSelf-represented
1 appearance

On Her Own Behalf

Houdeh HoushangiSelf-represented
1 appearance

on his own behalf

Gilbert McIntyreSelf-represented
1 appearance

On his own behalf

Orlando PrescodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Beata PhilipSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jim HattonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gansham NarayanSelf-represented
1 appearance

Respondent

Mary WinterSelf-represented
1 appearance
Scott HillAgent
1 appearance
Gordon FitzgeraldCounsel
1 appearance

Respondents

Jinan KubursiCounsel
1 appearance

Self-represented

Brenda DaughertySelf-represented
1 appearance
Candace BurgessSelf-represented
1 appearance
Elizabeth WoodworkSelf-represented
1 appearance
Judith PidgeonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gary WoodsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Daniel MalloySelf-represented
1 appearance

The Applicant

Peter GeorgakopoulosSelf-represented
1 appearance
Angelo HarrisonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Fraser KegelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Olakemi SobomehinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Cheryl StoneburghSelf-represented
1 appearance
Suzanne CohenSelf-represented
1 appearance

The Intervenor

Victor YeeCounsel
1 appearance

The Respondent

Nasrudin MuminCounsel
1 appearance
Justin McLartyCounsel
1 appearance
Colette DagherAgent
1 appearance
Erik SavasCounsel
1 appearance
Chris MendesAgent
1 appearance
Victor YeeCounsel
1 appearance

Peikang DaiCounsel
1 appearance

757

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

3.6

cases/mo

HRTO706(93%)

OCAT51(7%)

Decision types

motion

648

trial

109

/Adjudicator

Brian Cook — Member

Human Rights

Employment and Labour Law

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Real Estate Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Workers' Compensation

Landlord and Tenant

Health Law

ADR/Mediation Services

Brian Cook

Member·Condominium Authority Tribunal·Since 2008

OCAT HRTO

757

cases · 19 yrs · HRTO, OCAT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 554Adjudicator· 63Vice-chair· 63Member· 51Vice-Chair· 14Adjudicator· 8Vice-Chair· 1

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 13, 2011

Tribunal denies respondents' premature request for applicant's medical records prior to filing Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents did not require the documents to file a Response and that the request was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response within 35 days.

De Wit v. City of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2234

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 9, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the facts giving rise to the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Ricard v. Almonte General Hospital, 2011 HRTO 2226

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 8, 2011

Deferred human rights application reactivated following withdrawal of related labour board proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided a consent order demonstrating that the related proceeding had been withdrawn.

As the related proceeding was no longer underway and the respondent did not oppose the request, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

Gerard Dunphy v. Primary Response Inc., 2011 HRTO 2222

Brian Cook

Respondents given 10 days to file a response to human rights application or face default proceedings.

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

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline.

Uzoma Nwafor v. Wellesley Central Place and Louise Moran, 2011 HRTO 2197

Brian Cook

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned; respondent's request for costs denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to participate in the process or provide updated contact information.

The Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant was returned as undeliverable, and the applicant did not respond to multiple requests for updated information.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent's request for legal expenses was denied, as the Tribunal lacks the statutory authority to award costs.

Jonathan Schrock v. Lanmar Environmental Solutions Inc., 2011 HRTO 2192

Brian Cook

Deferred human rights application reactivated after related OLRB proceeding withdrawn.

The applicant requested the reactivation of a human rights application that had been deferred pending a related proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided evidence that the related proceeding had been withdrawn.

As the related proceeding was the sole reason for the deferral, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

J.C. v. Smylie’s Independent Grocers, 2011 HRTO 2189

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 1, 2011

Human rights application filed on Monday following a Saturday deadline was filed in time.

The applicant filed a human rights application on Monday, February 28, 2011, alleging the last discriminatory event occurred on February 26, 2010.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant submitted that because February 26, 2011 fell on a Saturday, the time limit was extended to the next business day pursuant to section 89(2) of the Legislation Act, 2006.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed out of time, and directed that the application be processed.

Watson v. Transgear Manufacturing, a Division of Linamar Holdings, 2011 HRTO 2162

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 22, 2011

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend hearing or respond to directions.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to participate within three weeks, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had decided not to pursue the matter and dismissed the application as abandoned.

Sandy Sampaio v. 1541094 Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 2115

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent WSIB proceedings regarding workplace accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a work-related repetitive strain injury.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB has the authority to consider the accommodation issues and that proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings and be unfair to the parties.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB process.

Anand v. Coppley Corp. and Dorothy Anderson, 2011 HRTO 2055

Brian Cook

Tribunal declined to defer human rights application pending WSIB process due to unclear claim status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing both a non-work-related foot injury and a work-related arm injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending a related WSIB process.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the status of the WSIB claim was unclear and it was uncertain whether the WSIB was adjudicating the subject-matter of the application.

The respondent was ordered to file a Response.

Fray v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2011 HRTO 2045

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending resolution of related Superior Court proceeding regarding co-op by-laws.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of their related application before the Superior Court of Justice seeking to evict the applicant's roommate.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that concurrent proceedings could result in inconsistent findings of fact or law, as both matters require an interpretation of the co-op by-laws.

Lee-Ann Turner on behalf of Christopher Ansell v. Brant Park Co-Op, 2011 HRTO 2052

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the facts and human rights issues substantially overlapped with ongoing union grievances filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondent and the union agreed to the deferral, while the applicant did not reply.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

Miriam Grandison v. Region of Peel, 2011 HRTO 2047

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 7, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of WSIB and WSIAT appeal processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB failed to accommodate her disability regarding her labour market re-entry plan.

The WSIB requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or deferred pending the outcome of internal WSIB and WSIAT appeals.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the completion of the WSIB and WSIAT appeal processes, noting that those bodies have jurisdiction to address the human rights issues raised.

Bradley v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2011 HRTO 2021

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 1, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant did not oppose deferral, and the respondent agreed to it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its general practice for concurrent proceedings.

Colleen O’Reilly v. Regional Municipality of Durham – Durham Region EMS, 2011 HRTO 1975

Blair McCreadie

17 cases2000–2015

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 26, 2011

Reconsideration granted and dismissal set aside where applicant's memory impairment caused failure to attend hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant provided medical evidence confirming a learning disability and memory impairment, which caused her to confuse the hearing date.

The Tribunal found that these circumstances outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the dismissal.

Woodwork v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada, 2011 HRTO 1929

Leola Pon

Practising Law - Employed11 cases2007–2017

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 24, 2011

Human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in ESL program dismissed at summary hearing.

The applicant, a student in an ESL program, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal after complaining about class size and his teacher.

At a summary hearing, the applicant sought to amend his application to add place of origin as a ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the amendment, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Bakhtier Shakhnazarov v. George Brown College, 2011 HRTO 1917

Susan Munn

Not Practising Law89 cases2008–2020

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 19, 2011

Human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discriminatory termination dismissed for lack of evidence.

She claimed co-workers mumbled around her desk and bullied her, and that her termination was motivated by discriminatory preferences.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the alleged harassment or the decision to declare her position surplus were related to any Code-protected grounds.

The respondents provided credible evidence that the restructuring was based on changing business needs and technology.

Morris v. Ontario (Finance), 2011 HRTO 1889

Jinan Kubursi

30 cases2001–2017

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 18, 2011

Tribunal finds age discrimination based on manager's comments encouraging older employee to retire.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's manager discriminated against her on the basis of age by repeatedly encouraging her to retire and discouraging her from applying for the permanent position.

The hearing was bifurcated, and a subsequent hearing was ordered to determine damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect arising from the discriminatory comments.

Deane v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 1863

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 13, 2011

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process, and the applicant did not object.

The Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

McFarlane v. Peel Halton Dufferin Acquired Brain Injury Services, 2011 HRTO 1862

Brian Cook