David Muir

Deferred human rights application reactivated to schedule hearing on whether grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with substance.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration.

The respondent opposed the request and argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and directed a half-day teleconference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1.

Patricia Bristow v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2012 HRTO 2211

David Muir

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

Wanda Maracle v. Wabaseemoong Education Authority, 2012 HRTO 2209

David Muir

Tribunal grants non-responding personal respondent 14 days to file response before proceeding without her.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and three personal respondents.

One personal respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding party of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted her an additional 14 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay.

Franco Pagulayan v. Hilton Garden Inn Toronto Downtown, 2012 HRTO 2205

David Muir

Respondent granted 14-day extension to file Response after failing to comply with previous order.

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

The Tribunal previously ordered the respondent to file its Response within 35 days.

The respondent failed to file a Response or return correspondence.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Fidela Amurao v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2012 HRTO 2204

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 23, 2012

Human rights application dismissed for delay; pursuing other legal forums is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than two years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application as abandoned after an administrative oversight resulted in the applicant's response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss not being placed before the adjudicator.

The Tribunal reconsidered the dismissal on its own initiative but ultimately dismissed the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pursuit of other legal proceedings and lack of medical evidence supporting her claim of post-partum depression did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Frankson v. MacKenzie Health, 2012 HRTO 2202

Alison A. Thornton

2 cases2012–2012

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 21, 2012

Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to meet threshold criteria and attempted to re-argue case.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application regarding her termination.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator misapprehended the Supreme Court's reasoning in Figliola.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Edwards v. Heydary Hamilton Professional Corporation, 2012 HRTO 2181

Tribunal orders implementation of settlement and finds applicant's threats to breach confidentiality constituted abuse of process.

The applicant filed applications alleging a breach of settlement by the respondent.

The respondent argued it was ready to implement the settlement but the applicant had breached confidentiality provisions and engaged in an abuse of process through a campaign of harassment and threats.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and her spouse were bound by the confidentiality provisions and that their threats to reveal the settlement terms, along with abusive communications, constituted an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction prohibiting future conduct outside its process.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to implement the settlement and confirmed the applicant and her spouse's ongoing confidentiality obligations.

Mitchinson v. Niagara Child and Youth Services, 2012 HRTO 2174

Linda Vanucci

3 cases2012–2013

Jessica Tellez

2 cases2012–2019

James Ball

2 cases2012–2024

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 19, 2012

Human rights application dismissed; seasonal worker abandoned employment rather than being terminated for marrying.

The applicant, a seasonal agricultural worker, alleged he was terminated because he got married in Canada, claiming discrimination based on ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, family status, and race.

The respondents maintained that the applicant abandoned his employment after his wedding and later sought employment outside of the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program, which they could not offer.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence contradictory regarding his residence after the wedding and concluded it was more probable that he left the worksite and sought work outside the Program.

The application was dismissed.

Casimir v. Double Diamond Acres Ltd., 2012 HRTO 2164

Mireille Khoraych

14 cases2010–2016

Laura A. Reesor

1 case2012–2012

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 15, 2012

Tribunal denies summary dismissal and finds human rights application timely as a series of incidents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, citizenship, and creed.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and argued that several allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that evidence was required to determine if an inference of discrimination could be drawn.

The Tribunal also found the application timely, as the allegations were sufficiently thematically connected to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Requests for document production and intervention were also denied as premature or incomplete.

Hussein v. Woodgreen Red Door Family Shelter, 2012 HRTO 2129

Sarah Goodman

1 case2012–2012

Rebecca Lee

3 cases2012–2012

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 14, 2012

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin, race, reprisal, and sex, specifically regarding a demotion and termination related to her pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant regarding her termination.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings involving the same facts and issues, despite the applicant's concerns about the union's handling of her grievance.

Jama v. Imperial Parking Canada Corporation, 2012 HRTO 2147

Roy Filion

55 cases1987–2019

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 14, 2012

Union granted intervenor status; applicant ordered to produce email containing alleged new claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being unsuccessful in job competitions.

The applicant's bargaining agent filed a Request to Intervene, which the Tribunal granted as unopposed.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking clarification of the issues, alleging the applicant was attempting to amend her application via an undisclosed email.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a copy of the email to the Tribunal and the intervenor within 7 days.

Peggy Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board, 2012 HRTO 2146

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 9, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

Connie Muller v. Ontario Power Generation, Darlington Nuclear and Jeff Ross, 2012 HRTO 2134

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 9, 2012

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

Manzano v. Vanderwater, 2012 HRTO 2133

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 9, 2012

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

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting mutually agreeable dates to reschedule a hearing and asking the applicant to confirm her intentions.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

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

Lynn Joyce v. D.L.P.H. Hambleton Group, 2012 HRTO 2132

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 8, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to correspondence.

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

A mediation session was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant, warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

Jeffrey Toulouse v. Franchise Management Inc., 2012 HRTO 2119

Lori Mishibinijima

12 cases2010–2017

David Muir

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 8, 2012

Employer ordered to pay $17,280 after terminating an employee upon learning of her pregnancy.

The applicant, an accounting clerk, alleged she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

The respondents claimed she was terminated for incompetence.

The Tribunal found the respondents' evidence lacked credibility and concluded the primary reason for termination was the discovery of the applicant's pregnancy, violating section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent and the owner jointly and severally to pay $12,000 for injury to dignity and $5,280 for lost wages.

A post-hearing request by the respondents for a re-hearing based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias was dismissed.

Ong v. Poya Organics & Spa Ltd, 2012 HRTO 2058

David Muir

Respondent granted 10 days to file a 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 by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Renu Verma v. Supply Chain Management, 2012 HRTO 2114

David Muir

Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

San Bui v. Paul Caprani, 2012 HRTO 2112

David Muir

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services based on age, colour, and race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time and did not describe an incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Simone Frankson v. Mackenzie Health, 2012 HRTO 2109

David Muir