Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 14, 2015

Reconsideration request denied as applicant merely disagreed with the original decision.

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

The applicant argued that he disagreed with the decision and restated previous submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that disagreement with a decision is not a valid ground for reconsideration and the applicant failed to meet any of the criteria under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

David Curtis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1366

Human rights application dismissed; no evidence linked English proficiency requirements to a Code-protected ground.

The applicant, an attendant employed by the respondent school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin after being denied a promotion to Custodian.

He claimed the respondent imposed arbitrary and shifting English language proficiency standards that were not required for the job.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed the required Basic Custodian Test due to incomplete and incorrect answers, not solely due to language proficiency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if language requirements were imposed, the applicant provided no evidence linking them to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

Vyas v. Peel District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1336

Brian Cook

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps regarding a court-ordered stay of proceedings against the respondent.

The applicant failed to respond within the 60-day deadline.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

Greenidge v. Target Canada Co., 2015 HRTO 1335

Allyson Otten

6 cases2001–2015

Brian Cook

Human rights application against vocational association for failure to represent dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry, disability, and sexual orientation against her vocational association and its Executive Director, claiming they failed to adequately represent her in dealings with her employer.

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

Finding that a failure to provide adequate representation is not, in and of itself, a breach of the Code, and that the applicant lacked evidence to show the failure was for discriminatory reasons, the Tribunal dismissed the Application.

Robin Royeton v. Ontario Principals’ Council and Ian McFarlane, 2015 HRTO 1332

David Lyman

5 cases2011–2024

Brian Cook

Practising Law - Employed16 cases2013–2023

Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications arising out of a tenancy with the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference call.

The respondent appeared, but the applicant failed to attend despite being given a half-hour grace period.

As the Notice of Summary Hearing was delivered to the applicant's provided address and there was no apparent reason for the failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned in accordance with its usual practice.

Noah Kirshenbaum v. Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. o/a Globe General Agencies, 2015 HRTO 1325

Graham Walsh

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 29, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination by an animal control officer dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant alleged that an Animal Control Officer discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed during an investigation regarding an injured pet rabbit.

The applicant claimed the officer bullied him and failed to accommodate his religious practice of not wearing shoes on prayer carpets.

The Tribunal found that the creed issue was resolved by rolling up the carpets.

While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant felt bullied and that the situation could have been handled better, it dismissed the application because there was no evidence linking the officer's conduct to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

Rahman v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 2015 HRTO 1286

Mathieu Duceppe

5 cases2015–2016

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 25, 2015

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following a work-related injury that led to the termination of his employment.

The respondent argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred in May or June 2013 when the applicant's employment was terminated for failing to provide a valid security guard license, not in January 2014 when he inquired about a uniform deposit.

As the application was filed in July 2014, it was out of time.

The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay, noting the applicant had legal representation during the relevant period.

The application was dismissed.

Irby Shepherd v. Intercon Security Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1282

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 21, 2015

Request for adjudicator recusal denied; disagreement with prior rulings and past tribunal experience do not establish bias.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the adjudicator to recuse himself from further dealings with the human rights application due to alleged bias.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator's past experience with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal created a conflict of interest, and that previous interim decisions demonstrated a failure to accommodate his psychological disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that disagreement with previous rulings does not establish bias, and that an informed person would not conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Lawson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1253

Michael Hazan

In Private Practice7 cases2015–2026

Laura Cassiani

Practising Law - Employed17 cases2008–2016

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 18, 2015

Request to amend human rights application granted in part for allegations within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include allegations of harassment and discrimination regarding the accommodation process prior to her termination.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice due to the passage of time and the closure of its business.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment in part, finding that the specific allegations relating to emails from September and October 2014 were timely as they occurred within one year of the request to amend.

Allegations prior to August 20, 2014, were deemed untimely but could be introduced as background information.

Murphy v. Lia Sophia Canada, 2015 HRTO 1250

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 16, 2015

Reconsideration request denied as untimely and failing to meet Rule 26 criteria.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision almost a year after it was issued, citing the return of a potential witness to Canada.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not filed within the required 30-day period and the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration, including failing to identify what evidence the witness would provide to support the allegations of discrimination or reprisal.

Felix v. Canadian Tire Corporation, 2015 HRTO 1233

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 11, 2015

Human rights application regarding WSIB benefit denial dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board denied entitlement to treatments for work-related injuries.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on jurisdiction, noting it cannot review benefit program decisions absent an allegation of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant's representative failed to provide jurisdictional submissions and instead sent abusive communications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and warned the representative that future disrespectful communications could result in his exclusion.

Mallenby v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1207

Frank Angeletti

25 cases1991–2017

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 4, 2015

Restaurant's initial denial of entry to a mobility scooter user constituted discrimination, mitigated by immediate apology.

The applicant, who uses a mobility scooter due to a disability, was initially denied entry to the respondent's restaurant by a staff member who mistook the scooter for a road vehicle.

The applicant re-entered without the scooter, at which point the staff member realized the error, apologized, offered free coffee, and told him he could bring the scooter inside.

The Tribunal found that while the initial denial constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code, the immediate apology and accommodation significantly mitigated the injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation.

Glanville v. 1212551 Ontario Ltd. o/a Tim Hortons, 2015 HRTO 1182

Megan Evans Maxwell

Practising Law - Employed27 cases2007–2023

George Waggott

In Private Practice6 cases2007–2020

Brian Cook

Practising Law - Employed6 cases2010–2015

Human rights application against Mexican trade commission dismissed due to state immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a trade commission of Mexico.

The respondent asserted state immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was part of the Mexican consular post and therefore a foreign state.

The Tribunal then considered whether the commercial activity exception applied to the applicant's employment contract.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's duties involved consular functions that were sovereign in nature, and that the proceedings would necessarily intrude on the sovereign interests of the respondent.

Consequently, the commercial activity exception did not apply, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Gould v. ProMexico – Trade Commission of Mexico in Toronto, 2015 HRTO 1165

Andrew Ashenhurst

Brian Cook

Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking connection to Code-protected grounds.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent retail store after being issued a no-trespass letter.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaints of harassment and stalking were not linked to any Code-protected grounds, and his claim of reprisal failed because he was not seeking to enforce Code-protected rights.

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

Martin v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 1164

Nancy Jammu-Taylor

15 cases2006–2020

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 1, 2015

Human rights application alleging reprisal by university professors and administration dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a former PhD student who was required to withdraw from her program, alleged that the respondents reprised against her for filing a human rights complaint.

She claimed a professor offered to publish a paper with her if she withdrew her complaint and threatened her if she refused, and that the university rejected her subsequent application for readmission as a reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the alleged conversation did not occur as described and that the readmission application was rejected due to its poor quality, not because of the human rights complaint.

Papanicolopoulou v. University of Windsor, 2015 HRTO 1160

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2015

Human rights applications dismissed for delay; pursuing LTB remedies is not a good faith explanation.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation, arising from noise and harassment by another tenant.

The applications were filed more than one year after the last incident.

The applicants argued the delay was in good faith because they were pursuing remedies at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, holding that pursuing other legal remedies before turning to the Tribunal does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

B.L. v. Lake Promenade Apartments Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1155

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, age, creed, and reprisal, primarily challenging decisions made by the WSIB regarding his entitlement to benefits and related court proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requesting submissions on jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions, supervise court proceedings, or address reprisal allegations unrelated to Code-protected rights.

David Curtis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1149

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 27, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal dismissed at summary hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on disability against the respondent.

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

The applicant claimed that a support services worker provided incorrect information about her disability to a Crown Attorney.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the alleged misinformation was provided due to discrimination or prejudice.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

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

Price v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2015 HRTO 1141

Brian Cook

Request to dismiss application denied where union grievance was filed but not pursued.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on family status after requesting child care accommodation.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a union grievance had been filed and deemed settled under the collective agreement when it was not pursued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the grievance was not pursued, no other proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent must file a formal request if it wishes to add the union as a respondent.

Wright v. One King West Hotel Residence, 2015 HRTO 1123

Brian Cook

Employment and Labour Law

Human rights application dismissed as out of time; pursuing grievance not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the termination of his employment.

He argued the delay was in good faith because he was pursuing a union grievance, which was ultimately dismissed at arbitration for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies does not normally constitute a good faith explanation for delay, and the applicant failed to explain a further three-month delay after the arbitration decision.

The application was dismissed as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Aikens v. Algoma District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1120

Applicant

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

counsel

Justin McLartyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel

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

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

for himself

David LawsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Tom SteersSelf-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

Brenda CulbertAgent
1 appearance
Glen MorrisonParalegal
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Christine LundyParalegal
6 appearances
John BartolomeoCounsel
5 appearances
Glen MorrisonAgent
4 appearances
Beth WaldenCounsel
4 appearances
Osborne BarnwellCounsel
4 appearances
Shawn WestonParalegal
4 appearances
Andrew SpragueSelf-represented
4 appearances
Andrew PintoCounsel
3 appearances
Audrey VassellSelf-represented
3 appearances
George CarterSelf-represented
3 appearances
Victor YeeCounsel
3 appearances
David VizcayaSelf-represented
3 appearances
Donald CampbellSelf-represented
3 appearances
Duane MyersSelf-represented
3 appearances
Juan ReyesSelf-represented
2 appearances
Pardeep ChodhaSelf-represented
2 appearances
Ella VenholaCounsel
2 appearances
Irby ShepherdSelf-represented
2 appearances
Isabelle DurocheSelf-represented
2 appearances
Susan KoviosSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicants

Berhane TsehayeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Brenda CulbertCounsel
1 appearance
Laura WhiteSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michelle BoyceSelf-represented
1 appearance
Randy WeaverSelf-represented
1 appearance
Roger MooreSelf-represented
1 appearance
Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance
Timothy WhiteSelf-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
Antoni CasalinuovoCounsel
1 appearance
Brian AshtonCounsel
1 appearance
Catherine DavisCounsel
1 appearance
David WrightCounsel
1 appearance
Gordon HumSelf-represented
1 appearance
Graham MartetteUnion representative
1 appearance
Heather Ann McConnellCounsel
1 appearance
Jenifer JoplingCounsel
1 appearance
Jessica HoffmanCounsel
1 appearance
Jorge HurtadoCounsel
1 appearance
Katherine RowenCounsel
1 appearance
Ken DamUnion representative
1 appearance
Mary Catherine ChambersCounsel
1 appearance
Melissa KronickCounsel
1 appearance
Michele Hamilton MayersCounsel
1 appearance
Aaron NeavesUnion representative
1 appearance
Piper HendersonCounsel
1 appearance
Risa PancerCounsel
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

Daryl CukiermanCounsel
1 appearance
Kylie Crawford Ten BrookCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

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

Catherine PetersCounsel
1 appearance
Mr. LaplanteCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Susan MunnCounsel
4 appearances
Patty MurrayCounsel
3 appearances
Erin PorterCounsel
3 appearances
Michelle AltonCounsel
2 appearances
Mathew MihailovichCounsel
2 appearances
Jean Leslie MarentetteCounsel
2 appearances
Nancy Jammu-TaylorCounsel
2 appearances
David GourlayCounsel
2 appearances
Robert StewartAgent
2 appearances
Kristin TaylorCounsel
2 appearances
Ellen LowCounsel
2 appearances
Catherine PetersCounsel
2 appearances
Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
1 appearance
Angela RaeCounsel
1 appearance
Anthony WellenreiterCounsel
1 appearance
Arif RazaCounsel
1 appearance
Asaminew AbebeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Atta ZabianSelf-represented
1 appearance
Balu GeorgeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Birinder AhluwaliaSelf-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

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

Respondent

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

Respondents

Jinan KubursiCounsel
1 appearance

Self-represented

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

The Applicant

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

The Intervenor

Victor YeeCounsel
1 appearance

The Respondent

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

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 OntarioOct 14, 2015

Reconsideration request denied as applicant merely disagreed with the original decision.

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

The applicant argued that he disagreed with the decision and restated previous submissions.

David Curtis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1366

Roy Filion

55 cases1987–2019

Paul O’Ryan

Practising Law - Employed24 cases2010–2018

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 7, 2015

Human rights application dismissed; no evidence linked English proficiency requirements to a Code-protected ground.

The applicant, an attendant employed by the respondent school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin after being denied a promotion to Custodian.

He claimed the respondent imposed arbitrary and shifting English language proficiency standards that were not required for the job.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed the required Basic Custodian Test due to incomplete and incorrect answers, not solely due to language proficiency.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if language requirements were imposed, the applicant provided no evidence linking them to a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

Vyas v. Peel District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1336

Brian Cook

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps regarding a court-ordered stay of proceedings against the respondent.

The applicant failed to respond within the 60-day deadline.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

Greenidge v. Target Canada Co., 2015 HRTO 1335

Allyson Otten

6 cases2001–2015

Brian Cook

Human rights application against vocational association for failure to represent dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Robin Royeton v. Ontario Principals’ Council and Ian McFarlane, 2015 HRTO 1332

David Lyman

5 cases2011–2024

Brian Cook

Practising Law - Employed16 cases2013–2023

Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications arising out of a tenancy with the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by telephone conference call.

The respondent appeared, but the applicant failed to attend despite being given a half-hour grace period.

Noah Kirshenbaum v. Phoenix Enterprises Ltd. o/a Globe General Agencies, 2015 HRTO 1325

Graham Walsh

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 29, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination by an animal control officer dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant alleged that an Animal Control Officer discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed during an investigation regarding an injured pet rabbit.

The applicant claimed the officer bullied him and failed to accommodate his religious practice of not wearing shoes on prayer carpets.

The Tribunal found that the creed issue was resolved by rolling up the carpets.

Rahman v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 2015 HRTO 1286

Mathieu Duceppe

5 cases2015–2016

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 25, 2015

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following a work-related injury that led to the termination of his employment.

The respondent argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

As the application was filed in July 2014, it was out of time.

The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay, noting the applicant had legal representation during the relevant period.

The application was dismissed.

Irby Shepherd v. Intercon Security Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1282

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 21, 2015

Request for adjudicator recusal denied; disagreement with prior rulings and past tribunal experience do not establish bias.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the adjudicator to recuse himself from further dealings with the human rights application due to alleged bias.

Lawson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1253

Michael Hazan

In Private Practice7 cases2015–2026

Laura Cassiani

Practising Law - Employed17 cases2008–2016

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 18, 2015

Request to amend human rights application granted in part for allegations within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include allegations of harassment and discrimination regarding the accommodation process prior to her termination.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice due to the passage of time and the closure of its business.

Allegations prior to August 20, 2014, were deemed untimely but could be introduced as background information.

Murphy v. Lia Sophia Canada, 2015 HRTO 1250

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 16, 2015

Reconsideration request denied as untimely and failing to meet Rule 26 criteria.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision almost a year after it was issued, citing the return of a potential witness to Canada.

Felix v. Canadian Tire Corporation, 2015 HRTO 1233

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 11, 2015

Human rights application regarding WSIB benefit denial dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board denied entitlement to treatments for work-related injuries.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on jurisdiction, noting it cannot review benefit program decisions absent an allegation of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant's representative failed to provide jurisdictional submissions and instead sent abusive communications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction and warned the representative that future disrespectful communications could result in his exclusion.

Mallenby v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1207

Frank Angeletti

25 cases1991–2017

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 4, 2015

Restaurant's initial denial of entry to a mobility scooter user constituted discrimination, mitigated by immediate apology.

The applicant, who uses a mobility scooter due to a disability, was initially denied entry to the respondent's restaurant by a staff member who mistook the scooter for a road vehicle.

The applicant re-entered without the scooter, at which point the staff member realized the error, apologized, offered free coffee, and told him he could bring the scooter inside.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation.

Glanville v. 1212551 Ontario Ltd. o/a Tim Hortons, 2015 HRTO 1182

Megan Evans Maxwell

Practising Law - Employed27 cases2007–2023

George Waggott

In Private Practice6 cases2007–2020

Brian Cook

Practising Law - Employed6 cases2010–2015

Human rights application against Mexican trade commission dismissed due to state immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a trade commission of Mexico.

The respondent asserted state immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was part of the Mexican consular post and therefore a foreign state.

The Tribunal then considered whether the commercial activity exception applied to the applicant's employment contract.

Consequently, the commercial activity exception did not apply, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Gould v. ProMexico – Trade Commission of Mexico in Toronto, 2015 HRTO 1165

Andrew Ashenhurst

Brian Cook

Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking connection to Code-protected grounds.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent retail store after being issued a no-trespass letter.

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

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

Martin v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 1164

Nancy Jammu-Taylor

15 cases2006–2020

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 1, 2015

Human rights application alleging reprisal by university professors and administration dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a former PhD student who was required to withdraw from her program, alleged that the respondents reprised against her for filing a human rights complaint.

Papanicolopoulou v. University of Windsor, 2015 HRTO 1160

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2015

Human rights applications dismissed for delay; pursuing LTB remedies is not a good faith explanation.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation, arising from noise and harassment by another tenant.

The applications were filed more than one year after the last incident.

The applicants argued the delay was in good faith because they were pursuing remedies at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

B.L. v. Lake Promenade Apartments Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1155

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requesting submissions on jurisdiction.

David Curtis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1149

Brian Cook

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 27, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal dismissed at summary hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on disability against the respondent.

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

The applicant claimed that a support services worker provided incorrect information about her disability to a Crown Attorney.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the alleged misinformation was provided due to discrimination or prejudice.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

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

Price v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2015 HRTO 1141

Brian Cook

Request to dismiss application denied where union grievance was filed but not pursued.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on family status after requesting child care accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that because the grievance was not pursued, no other proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent must file a formal request if it wishes to add the union as a respondent.

Wright v. One King West Hotel Residence, 2015 HRTO 1123

Brian Cook