Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 28, 2010

Tribunal grants respondent 21 days to file late response to human rights application.

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

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondent of the potential consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 21 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

Brunina Carnavale v. Franca Adamo, 2010 HRTO 203

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 15, 2010

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it duplicated an existing transitioned human rights complaint.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a police officer, alleging an incident that occurred on March 17, 2008.

The applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission against the Thunder Bay Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, which was transitioned to the Tribunal under section 53(5).

The Tribunal found that the new application concerned an allegation that was the same as one in the transitioned file, with the only difference being the discovery of the officer's name.

Pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the new application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the applicant should instead request to amend the transitioned file to add the officer as a personal respondent.

Richard Burns v. James Elvish, 2010 HRTO 74

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 14, 2010

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the employer's interprovincial trucking operations are federally regulated.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer, a logistics company.

The respondents brought a request for an order to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the employment was federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent transports products across provincial boundaries using its own trucks and employees.

Consequently, the employment falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Feeney v. Ryder Logistics, 2010 HRTO 68

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 12, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

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

After a scheduled mediation did not proceed, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's requests for alternative dates and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Kelly Roussy v. Barrie Taxi Ltd., 2010 HRTO 45

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 11, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal communications.

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

The parties agreed to mediation, but the respondent requested a rescheduling.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by telephone and letter to canvass dates, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Thompson v. Toronto East General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 41

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 6, 2010

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services against a bank and its employee.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the corporate respondent is a federally regulated bank governed by the Bank Act.

The Tribunal found that banking falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application.

Maeder v. TD Canada Trust, 2010 HRTO 19

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 4, 2010

Deferred human rights application re-activated and amendment to damages claimed permitted.

The applicant submitted a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred to allow him to pursue an alternate remedy.

He also sought to amend the application to increase the damages claimed.

The respondent did not object to the re-activation.

The Tribunal granted the request, re-activated the application, allowed the amendment, and directed the respondent to file a full Response.

Tom States v. York University, 2010 HRTO 2

Mr. Laplante

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 22, 2009

Hearing reconvened to allow cross-examination on unsworn documents submitted post-hearing.

Following a hearing, the applicant submitted unsworn documents from an employment agency pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction.

The respondents objected to the unsworn nature of the documents and sought to make submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to be reconvened to allow the applicant to call the author of the documents as a witness and permit cross-examination by the respondents.

Jessie Guay v. 1481979 Ontario Inc. and Michael Angst, 2009 HRTO 2247

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance dealing with the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision seeking submissions on whether the application should be deferred because of an ongoing grievance dealing with the same issues.

The respondent and the intervenor union opposed deferral, with the respondent arguing the application was an attempt to challenge his authority and should be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the facts and issues in the grievance were largely the same.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

Hatton v. Pollock, 2009 HRTO 2211

Catherine Peters

Brian Cook

Employer failed to accommodate pregnant employee's restriction against prolonged standing; $2,000 awarded for injury to dignity.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related low back injury and subsequently became pregnant, alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and pregnancy.

She required accommodation for a medical restriction against prolonged standing.

The employer refused her request to use a chair at her workstation due to safety concerns and instead offered her the option to sit in the first aid room.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to fully explore all options that would have enabled the applicant to fulfill the essential duties of her job without prolonged standing.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents infringed the applicant's Code-protected rights and ordered compensation for lost earnings and $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Williams v. Hudson’s Bay Company/Zellers, 2009 HRTO 2168

Catherine Peters

Brian Cook

Application for failure to accommodate workplace injuries dismissed; employer's modified work plans deemed reasonable.

The applicant, an employee at a Zellers distribution centre, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the employer and its disability management company failed to reasonably accommodate her work-related back and shoulder injuries.

The Tribunal found that the employer engaged in a reasonable accommodation process by developing return-to-work plans based on medical information, offering modified work, and instructing the applicant not to perform tasks exceeding her restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the accommodation provided was reasonable and dismissed the application.

Alexander v. Zellers, 2009 HRTO 2167

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 10, 2009

Human rights application alleging discrimination based on record of offences dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a record of offences, specifically an impaired driving conviction under the Criminal Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide submissions showing he had received a pardon under the Criminal Records Act, which is necessary to establish a record of offences under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Curtis Fee v. Nina Di Fresco, 2009 HRTO 2147

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 8, 2009

Tribunal issues interim decision warning non-participating respondents of consequences of failing to file a response.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were given a final deadline to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Thomas Jakobek v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626, 2009 HRTO 2105

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 7, 2009

Respondents ordered to file a response to human rights application or face proceedings without notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a response by December 14, 2009, along with an explanation for the delay, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

Jackson v. Orsini Bros. Inn Inc., 2009 HRTO 2115

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 4, 2009

Human rights application re-activated after union declined to pursue grievance further.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending an ongoing grievance.

The applicant requested to re-activate the application after her union negotiated a settlement that she did not accept, and the union subsequently confirmed it would not pursue the grievance further.

As the grievance proceeding was completed and no response to the request was received, the Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and directed the respondent to file a response.

Pauline Kench v. Automodular Assemblies Inc., 2009 HRTO 2106

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 3, 2009

Tribunal directed respondents to file submissions detailing business structure to support their federal jurisdiction objection.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of sex, marital status, and reprisal.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application, arguing the organizational respondent is a federally regulated logistics company.

The Tribunal found the respondents provided insufficient information to determine jurisdiction and directed them to file written submissions detailing the business structure and addressing relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Feeney v. Ryder Logistics, 2009 HRTO 2099

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance on the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed, deferred, or that the personal respondent be removed, arguing that an ongoing grievance dealt with the same issues and that no prima facie case was established.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case and declined to dismiss the application or remove the personal respondent at this stage.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the ongoing grievance process.

Joginder Sharma v. Wheeltronic Limited (Snap on Tools) and Abaid Rahman, 2009 HRTO 2055

Brian Cook

Application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Noronha v. 1174364 Ontario Ltd. (No. 4), 2009 HRTO 2054

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 16, 2009

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent trucking company is federally regulated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a trucking company.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federal work or undertaking engaged in interprovincial transportation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and that the human rights issues are governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941

Douglas Abraham

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 10, 2009

Tribunal denied respondents' request to dismiss human rights application regarding church expulsion.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging they were expelled from their church congregation on grounds protected by the Code.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing that section 18 of the Code protected their membership restrictions, that section 34(11) barred the application due to an ongoing civil proceeding, and that an internal church dispute resolution process was ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss or defer, finding that section 18 did not apply because the applicants alleged discrimination on other grounds, section 34(11) did not apply because the civil proceeding involved different parties and did not seek a Code remedy, and the internal process would not address the human rights issues.

Tsehaye v. English District Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, 2009 HRTO 1921

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 OntarioJan 28, 2010

Tribunal grants respondent 21 days to file late response to human rights application.

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

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 21 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

Brunina Carnavale v. Franca Adamo, 2010 HRTO 203

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 15, 2010

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it duplicated an existing transitioned human rights complaint.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a police officer, alleging an incident that occurred on March 17, 2008.

The Tribunal found that the new application concerned an allegation that was the same as one in the transitioned file, with the only difference being the discovery of the officer's name.

Richard Burns v. James Elvish, 2010 HRTO 74

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 14, 2010

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the employer's interprovincial trucking operations are federally regulated.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer, a logistics company.

The respondents brought a request for an order to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the employment was federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent transports products across provincial boundaries using its own trucks and employees.

Consequently, the employment falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Feeney v. Ryder Logistics, 2010 HRTO 68

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 12, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

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

After a scheduled mediation did not proceed, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's requests for alternative dates and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Kelly Roussy v. Barrie Taxi Ltd., 2010 HRTO 45

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 11, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal communications.

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

The parties agreed to mediation, but the respondent requested a rescheduling.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by telephone and letter to canvass dates, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Thompson v. Toronto East General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 41

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 6, 2010

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services against a bank and its employee.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the corporate respondent is a federally regulated bank governed by the Bank Act.

The Tribunal found that banking falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application.

Maeder v. TD Canada Trust, 2010 HRTO 19

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 4, 2010

Deferred human rights application re-activated and amendment to damages claimed permitted.

The applicant submitted a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred to allow him to pursue an alternate remedy.

He also sought to amend the application to increase the damages claimed.

The respondent did not object to the re-activation.

The Tribunal granted the request, re-activated the application, allowed the amendment, and directed the respondent to file a full Response.

Tom States v. York University, 2010 HRTO 2

Mr. Laplante

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 22, 2009

Hearing reconvened to allow cross-examination on unsworn documents submitted post-hearing.

Following a hearing, the applicant submitted unsworn documents from an employment agency pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction.

The respondents objected to the unsworn nature of the documents and sought to make submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to be reconvened to allow the applicant to call the author of the documents as a witness and permit cross-examination by the respondents.

Jessie Guay v. 1481979 Ontario Inc. and Michael Angst, 2009 HRTO 2247

Risa Pancer

Not Practising Law22 cases1994–2011

Geoff Jeffery

2 cases2009–2016

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 16, 2009

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance dealing with the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision seeking submissions on whether the application should be deferred because of an ongoing grievance dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the facts and issues in the grievance were largely the same.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

Hatton v. Pollock, 2009 HRTO 2211

Catherine Peters

Brian Cook

Employer failed to accommodate pregnant employee's restriction against prolonged standing; $2,000 awarded for injury to dignity.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related low back injury and subsequently became pregnant, alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and pregnancy.

She required accommodation for a medical restriction against prolonged standing.

The employer refused her request to use a chair at her workstation due to safety concerns and instead offered her the option to sit in the first aid room.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to fully explore all options that would have enabled the applicant to fulfill the essential duties of her job without prolonged standing.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents infringed the applicant's Code-protected rights and ordered compensation for lost earnings and $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Williams v. Hudson’s Bay Company/Zellers, 2009 HRTO 2168

Catherine Peters

Brian Cook

Application for failure to accommodate workplace injuries dismissed; employer's modified work plans deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal concluded that the accommodation provided was reasonable and dismissed the application.

Alexander v. Zellers, 2009 HRTO 2167

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 10, 2009

Human rights application alleging discrimination based on record of offences dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on a record of offences, specifically an impaired driving conviction under the Criminal Code.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Curtis Fee v. Nina Di Fresco, 2009 HRTO 2147

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 8, 2009

Tribunal issues interim decision warning non-participating respondents of consequences of failing to file a response.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The respondents were given a final deadline to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Thomas Jakobek v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1626, 2009 HRTO 2105

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 7, 2009

Respondents ordered to file a response to human rights application or face proceedings without notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

Jackson v. Orsini Bros. Inn Inc., 2009 HRTO 2115

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 4, 2009

Human rights application re-activated after union declined to pursue grievance further.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending an ongoing grievance.

The applicant requested to re-activate the application after her union negotiated a settlement that she did not accept, and the union subsequently confirmed it would not pursue the grievance further.

As the grievance proceeding was completed and no response to the request was received, the Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and directed the respondent to file a response.

Pauline Kench v. Automodular Assemblies Inc., 2009 HRTO 2106

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 3, 2009

Tribunal directed respondents to file submissions detailing business structure to support their federal jurisdiction objection.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of sex, marital status, and reprisal.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application, arguing the organizational respondent is a federally regulated logistics company.

Feeney v. Ryder Logistics, 2009 HRTO 2099

Brian Cook

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance on the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case and declined to dismiss the application or remove the personal respondent at this stage.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the ongoing grievance process.

Joginder Sharma v. Wheeltronic Limited (Snap on Tools) and Abaid Rahman, 2009 HRTO 2055

Brian Cook

Application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Noronha v. 1174364 Ontario Ltd. (No. 4), 2009 HRTO 2054

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 16, 2009

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent trucking company is federally regulated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a trucking company.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federal work or undertaking engaged in interprovincial transportation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and that the human rights issues are governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941

Douglas Abraham

Brian Cook