Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 16, 2015

Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the Tribunal ignored evidence of bullying and harassment and violated its own rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or involved a matter of public importance, and failed to identify factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1374

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 15, 2015

Request to amend human rights application to add reprisal allegations granted in part.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal against the respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's president repeatedly contacted her after she filed the application, causing her emotional stress.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the reprisal allegations regarding the respondent's communications, but excluded allegations regarding a co-worker's threats, as the co-worker was not a named respondent.

Carlisle v. Perfect Renovations Group, 2015 HRTO 1371

Human rights application dismissed; shift cancellations were operational and single derogatory comments did not constitute harassment.

The applicant, a part-time Registered Nurse, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed her shifts were cancelled for discriminatory reasons and that co-workers made derogatory racial and ethnic comments.

The Tribunal found that the shift cancellations were based on valid operational reasons, specifically low patient census and the applicant's low seniority.

Regarding the comments, the Tribunal concluded that even if they were made, they were single, discrete incidents that were not sufficiently egregious or virulent to constitute harassment or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

Pereira v. Humber River Regional Hospital, 2015 HRTO 1340

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 30, 2015

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to connect alleged unfairness to prohibited grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and its personnel regarding the handling of her previous applications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a prohibited ground.

The applicant's response reiterated her allegations of administrative unfairness without establishing a nexus to her race, colour, or other protected grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction.

Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1298

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 1, 2015

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for lack of standing and excessive delay.

The applicant, a former teacher whose employment was terminated in 2004, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against students with disabilities and reprisal against herself for advocating on their behalf.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked standing to bring an application on behalf of unnamed students, as she did not have their consent and could not rely on implied consent.

Furthermore, the allegations regarding the infringement of her own rights were dismissed for delay, as the events occurred over a decade prior and no good faith explanation for the delay was provided.

Lois-Ann Kohar v. The Hamilton Wentworth District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1158

Tanya Chin

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2015

Reconsideration granted and dismissal set aside where applicant asserted she did not receive notice.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to file a Reply.

The applicant submitted that she did not receive the Tribunal's notice requiring her to file submissions.

Relying on recent Divisional Court jurisprudence, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's assertion that she did not receive the notice, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the previous decision.

Hammadieh v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2015 HRTO 1144

Iain Donnell

7 cases2008–2023

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 26, 2015

Applicant ordered to disclose relevant documents and confirm Reply materials or face dismissal.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to comply with document disclosure rules and file a Reply.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had filed materials intended as a Reply but missed the deadline for the formal form.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to confirm her Reply materials and to disclose all relevant documents within 14 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

Soroush v. Ja’fari Islamic Housing, 2015 HRTO 1130

Douglas Sanderson

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

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that a full and final release had been signed.

After the applicant's representative withdrew, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Response.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence or the Case Assessment Direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

Melanson v. Tecumseh Cab & Lakeshore Taxi Inc., 2015 HRTO 1127

Susan Ursel

44 cases1985–2024

Douglas Sanderson

In Private Practice16 cases2015–2018

Request for early production of employment file denied where respondents already disclosed consulting contract and invoices.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested a summary hearing.

The applicant sought an interim order for early production of his employment file to clarify his employment status before filing a Reply and Response to the summary hearing request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that early production was not necessary because the respondents had already disclosed the applicant's consulting contract and invoices, which provided the information sought.

Bryn Hendricks v. Egale Canada Human Rights Trust and Helen Kennedy, 2015 HRTO 1125

Jacquie Dagher

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application dismissed under section 34(11) due to concurrent civil action seeking same remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the respondents.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action arose from the same facts and sought remedies for the same alleged Code violations.

As section 34(11) is intended to prevent duplicative litigation, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Baillu v. Bruyere Continuing Care, 2015 HRTO 992

Douglas Sanderson

Request for Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry denied as standard document production process applies.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, alleged discrimination based on race after being accused of workplace violence.

He filed a Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry to obtain evidence of an alleged conspiracy against him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the usual document production process and that much of the requested information went beyond the scope of the narrowed application.

Amazan v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 991

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 23, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide requested status update.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of age.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the completion of a related proceeding before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

After the applicant and his counsel failed to respond to the Tribunal's requests for a status update by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Bova v. Akwesasne Mohawk Police Services, 2015 HRTO 977

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 22, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for union settlement is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was waiting for her union to negotiate a settlement with her employer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that waiting for another process to conclude does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Paul v. Grand River Hospital (Specialized Mental Health Unit), 2015 HRTO 971

Wade Poziomka

55 cases2011–2017

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2015

Tribunal retains jurisdiction over employment dispute pending further evidence and denies request to amend application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the respondent, a television broadcasting enterprise, falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the Tribunal found that the nature of the respondent's business and the applicant's duties were in dispute, and therefore it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that processing of the application continue.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request to amend the application to add place of origin and citizenship as prohibited grounds, finding no proper basis for the amendment.

Emile v. The World Impact Ministries Inc., 2015 HRTO 964

Ian Johncox

In Private Practice2 cases2012–2015

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 7, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

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

She claimed she was sexually harassed by a co-worker years prior, subjected to a toxic work environment, and reprised against when the respondent required her to pay rent for her employer-provided apartment while on medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment allegations for delay, finding no series of incidents and no good faith explanation for the delay.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding that the work environment complaints were not linked to any Code grounds and that the reprisal claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's underlying complaints did not relate to Code rights.

Dankevy v. Valiant Rental Properties Limited, 2015 HRTO 898

Kathryn Bird

In Private Practice43 cases2009–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 17, 2015

Tribunal dismisses applicant's procedural requests for production, adding respondents, and ordering inquiries in discrimination complaint.

The applicant, a former student expelled from the respondent university's Social Work Program, brought an application alleging discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his remedies on consent, but dismissed his requests for production of privileged documents and police reports, requests to add an admissions clerk and the respondents' counsel as individual respondents, requests for Tribunal-ordered inquiries into the university's operations, and requests for the contact information of other students.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were either privileged or not in the respondents' control, the proposed respondents were not necessary parties, the requested inquiries were outside the scope of the proceeding, and the privacy interests of other students outweighed the limited probative value of their potential evidence.

Barksey v. Laurentian University, 2015 HRTO 814

Paul Matthews

8 cases2009–2018

Jerry Raso

73 cases1990–2024

Devin Paul

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 8, 2015

Human rights application partially dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence of racial discrimination.

The applicant, a black teacher, alleged that workplace violence complaints filed against him by several co-workers were motivated by racial discrimination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several individual respondents, finding no evidence linking their actions to the applicant's race.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against the school board and two individuals regarding the initial incident, as the applicant's allegations of disproportionate reaction could potentially support an inference of discrimination.

Amazan v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 751

Jonathan Maier

8 cases2012–2023

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 27, 2015

Human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate disability consolidated and deferred pending concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his medical restrictions and refused to allow him to return to work.

The respondents sought to defer the applications pending a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications due to their similar facts and issues, and deferred them pending the resolution of the grievance arbitration, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

Pooler v. U.S. Steel Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 695

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 26, 2015

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent direction from the Tribunal regarding her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Jennifer Benstead v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 684

Holly Walbourne

18 cases2013–2019

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 20, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process due to applicant's repeated breaches of tribunal rules.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application on the basis that the applicant's conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly breached the Tribunal's rules and orders by posting documents obtained through the proceeding, including witness lists and booking room videos, on the internet.

The applicant also posted highly vulgar and insulting videos directed at the respondent and its counsel.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for the Tribunal's rules and orders, amounting to a serious abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 653

Affected Party

Toronto Police ServiceSelf-represented
1 appearance

Applicant

Nina SouroushSelf-represented
1 appearance
Changhyun ParkSelf-represented
1 appearance
Bailee BuckmaterSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ardalan RobatiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Coleen JacobSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lewis HoppsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Emmanuel OxleySelf-represented
1 appearance
Nathalie CarrierSelf-represented
1 appearance
Leslie AustinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sabina MulosmaniSelf-represented
1 appearance
Diana BoltinskySelf-represented
1 appearance
Stephanie TarczySelf-represented
1 appearance
Joseph WhitwellSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kevin WerbeskiAgent
1 appearance
Donna RyderSelf-represented
1 appearance
John GarlandSelf-represented
1 appearance
Warner GrovumSelf-represented
1 appearance
Liudmila GubrenkoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Clayton FullerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Garfield SimmsSelf-represented
1 appearance

Counsel

Caroline RichardCounsel
1 appearance
Paul MeierCounsel
1 appearance
Thomas StefanikCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent

Daphne FedorukCounsel
1 appearance
Catherine ConradCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

Glenn ChristieCounsel
1 appearance
Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
1 appearance

for 1103531 Ontario Inc., c.o.b. as Video Plus

Pieter JoubertCounsel
1 appearance

for Atikokan Native Friendship Centre

Carolyn KayCounsel
1 appearance

for Bennett Health Care Centre

Brent ForemanCounsel
1 appearance

for Bill Tough

Robert HealeyCounsel
1 appearance

for Bruyere Continuing Care, Pamela Eisener-Parsche and Anne Harley, Respondents

Jacquie DagherCounsel
1 appearance

for Canadian Federation of Independent Unions (CNFIU), Charlene Nero

Erin HallockCounsel
1 appearance

for Canadian Soccer Association

Richard SinclairCounsel
1 appearance

for Community Living Atikokan

Garth O’NeilCounsel
1 appearance

for Dr. Ronald Dykeman

Elizabeth GraceCounsel
1 appearance

for eHealth Ontario and Lynn Corkum

Mark A. StoneCounsel
1 appearance

for Essex County Soccer Association and Ontario Soccer Association

Robert RichlerCounsel
1 appearance

for Etobicoke Youth Soccer Club and Remo DiCarlo

Robert RichlerCounsel
1 appearance

for General Paint Corporation, Dick Glassford, and Horst Kreissler

Patrick GannonCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Taylor RansomCounsel
2 appearances

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Caroline CohenCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General

Sandra NishikawaCounsel
1 appearance

for herself

Ewa GulbinowiczSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Labourers’ Workers Union, LIUNA, Local 183

Tracey HenryCounsel
1 appearance

for Loop

Mr. GeigerCounsel
1 appearance

for Mano Sachithananthan

Mano SachithananthanSelf-represented
1 appearance

for MCI Medical Clinics Inc., Robert Carleton, and Sophie Ritchie

Alex Van KralingenCounsel
1 appearance

for Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Hillary CookCounsel
1 appearance

for Peter Bernotas, Marie-Josée Duchesne, Doreen Pierini, Nicole Gueigueirre

Jerry RasoCounsel
1 appearance

for Securitas Canada Limited

Dan McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for Shohiduzzaman Chayan

Jordan RumanekAgent
1 appearance

for Soler D&V Licensing (Thornhill) Inc. and Lori Soler

Alex SolerAgent
1 appearance

for St. Michael’s Hospital, Cheryl Adoranti, Catherine Valentini and Denise Wilson

Michelle HenryCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Parties

Allan McKitrickCounsel
1 appearance
Ansuya PachaiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party

Adrienne LiangCounsel
1 appearance
Robert HealeyCounsel
1 appearance
Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party, Toronto Police Service Board

Ansuya PachaiCounsel
1 appearance

for the applicant

Emily DenommeCounsel
1 appearance
Isabelle Roy-NunnCounsel
1 appearance
Mr. FisherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Allen RosarioSelf-represented
6 appearances
Ronald IhaszSelf-represented
6 appearances
Wade PoziomkaCounsel
6 appearances
Jamie McGinnisCounsel
4 appearances
Cecil NormanAgent
4 appearances
Rhonda HowellsAgent
4 appearances
David ArmstrongSelf-represented
4 appearances
Danielle BisnarCounsel
4 appearances
Felix AmazanSelf-represented
3 appearances
Kate SellarCounsel
3 appearances
Shahenaz AlibhaiSelf-represented
3 appearances
Christine LundyAgent
3 appearances
David BakerCounsel
3 appearances
C.G.Self-represented
3 appearances
Sachchu KhanSelf-represented
3 appearances
Angela ManciniAgent
3 appearances
Katherine LinSelf-represented
3 appearances
Patrick JamesCounsel
3 appearances
Joseph WhitwellSelf-represented
2 appearances
Randy KingSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicants

Karen SanchezCounsel
2 appearances
Roger LoveCounsel
1 appearance
Michelle BoyceSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kate SellarCounsel
1 appearance
E.L.Self-represented
1 appearance
Sharmaine HallCounsel
1 appearance

for the College of Nurses of Ontario

Katharine MontpetitCounsel
3 appearances
Raj AnandCounsel
3 appearances

for the Former Respondent

Brent ForemanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Interested Party

Peter HardingCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Jerry RasoCounsel
2 appearances
Kate HughesCounsel
1 appearance
Nini JonesCounsel
1 appearance
Geri SansonCounsel
1 appearance
Adam WebbCounsel
1 appearance
Paul O’RyanCounsel
1 appearance
Devon PaulCounsel
1 appearance
Tom RookeCounsel
1 appearance
Faisal BhabaCounsel
1 appearance
Elichai ShaffirCounsel
1 appearance
Anne GregoryCounsel
1 appearance
Elizabeth NurseCounsel
1 appearance
Alana MihaljCounsel
1 appearance
Lori KentCounsel
1 appearance
Mona StaplesCounsel
1 appearance
Jessica AmeyCounsel
1 appearance
Ryan GoldvineCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Canadian Auto Workers' Union - Canada

Lewis GottheilCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Sukanya PillayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328

Devin PaulCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Nishnawbe-Gamik Friendship Centre

Holly WalbourneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Ontario Nurses Association

Kate HughesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Vaughan Professional Firefighters Association

Cynthia PetersenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Cathy PikeCounsel
1 appearance

for the Pay Equity Office

Ayumi BaillyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Polish Mutual Benefit Society

Mark MikulasikCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent

Cindy CohenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent Alan Jackson

William R. CounterCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent, Nishnawbe-Gamik Friendship Centre

Holly WalbourneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondents Rick Hampton and Dina Hampton

Stephen PanzerCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent

Carolyn KayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Paul MeierCounsel
6 appearances
Steve LavenderCounsel
5 appearances
Holly WalbourneCounsel
5 appearances
Brenda BowlbyCounsel
3 appearances
Bettina BurgessCounsel
3 appearances
Gita AnandCounsel
3 appearances
Marni TolenskyCounsel
3 appearances
Laura KarabulutCounsel
3 appearances
Jonathan MaierCounsel
3 appearances
Murray WrightSelf-represented
3 appearances
Kathryn BirdCounsel
3 appearances
Elisha Jamieson-DaviesCounsel
2 appearances
Shana FrenchCounsel
2 appearances
Carissa TanzolaCounsel
2 appearances
Sven PoysaCounsel
2 appearances
John-Paul AlexandrowiczCounsel
2 appearances
Ian SolomonCounsel
2 appearances
Mandy FricotCounsel
2 appearances
Jessica YoungCounsel
2 appearances
Margot BlightCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent 92085 Ontario Inc. o/a Final Touch Services & Alladin Carpet Cleaning

Rod GoodallAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Acclaim Ability Management Inc.

Thomas GorskyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Amalgamated Transit Union 1624

Lisa FinebergCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Bruce Lewis

Lawrence CrackowerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2713

Paul O’RyanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 32

Paul O’RyanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

Douglas WrayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent CFJ Nuclear Contractors Ltd.

Richard CharneyCounsel
1 appearance
Daniel McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Children and Family Services for York Region

Amelia DaurioCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Children's Aid Society of Ottawa

Carole JenkinsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent C[...] Inc.

Gary BatasarCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent City of Sarnia

Steven WilsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent City of Toronto

Darraugh MeagherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent College of Nurses of Ontario

Raj AnandCounsel
2 appearances
Katharine MontpetitCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Days Inn Lundys Lane

Bradley TroupCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Domenic Alonzi

Enio ZeppieriCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Dr. Eric Spindler

Jennifer KatsunoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, Durham Children’s Aid Society

Vincent PanettaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent FCA Canada Inc.

Christopher DunnCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation

Mathieu DuceppeCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Greater Essex County District School Board

Sheila MacKinnonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

Jane GoodingCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hamilton-Wentworth Elementary Teachers’ Local

Kate HughesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of Education

Rachel WeinerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Taylor RansomCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Humber River Regional Hospital

Carolyn Cornford GreavesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636

Craig FloodCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Kapuskasing Ontario Provincial Police

Fatema DadaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Kenneth Alexander

Kenneth AlexanderSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Kevin Fox

Kevin FoxSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent King Township

M. David RossCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Leslie Perrin

Leslie PerrinSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Manny Cardosa

James StewartCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Manulife Financial

Sophia ZaidiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority

Stephanie JeronimoCounsel
1 appearance
John SaundersCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Millwright Regional Council of Ontario, Local 1592

Meg AtkinsonCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Mohammad Reza Nikkhou

Jennifer KatsunoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent North Eastern Ontario Family and Child Services

Justin EllertCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Nurses Association

Colin JohnstonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Soccer Association

Jessica DiFedericoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Universities’ Application Centre

Donald KiddCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Paul Armstrong

Glenn ChristieCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ralph Johnson

Jordan LesterCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, Ralph Johnson

Jordan LesterCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent(s)

Carolyn Cornford GreavesCounsel
1 appearance
Daniel HuffakerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Lynette D’SouzaCounsel
2 appearances
Nicole SmithCounsel
2 appearances
Greg BullenCounsel
2 appearances
Ken MacDonaldCounsel
2 appearances
Michael S. RichardsCounsel
2 appearances
Michael RichardsCounsel
2 appearances
Leslie FrattolinCounsel
2 appearances
Tina EarlCounsel
2 appearances
Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
2 appearances
Sunira ChaudhriCounsel
2 appearances
Ian JohnstoneCounsel
1 appearance
Marnie CorboldCounsel
1 appearance
Erin PorterAgent
1 appearance
Alix HerberCounsel
1 appearance
Peter ThorupCounsel
1 appearance
Jennifer RichardsCounsel
1 appearance
Erik KupkaCounsel
1 appearance
Paul H. StarkmanCounsel
1 appearance
Melissa ArrudaCounsel
1 appearance
Noel John HennessyAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondents and Proposed Respondents

Christopher SinalCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Bram Samaroo and Ryan Pitcher

Christopher McClellandCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Securitas Canada Limited

Daniel McDonaldCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondents Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Mathew Curran, Colleen Lee, Jennifer Mitchell and Sharron O’Halloran

Christine DaviesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada

Helen NowakCounsel
1 appearance
Ken EvettUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Respondent Slovenian Linden Foundation

Jacinthe BoudreauCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent SM Medical Centre

Nadia MarottaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Peel District School Board, Mary Anne McArthur, Tina Morrison, Jan Courtin and Shirley Ann Teal

Roy FilionCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Susan Wall

Wade PoziomkaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents William Osler Heath System and Laura Albisu

Christopher ParkesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Winners Merchants International LP, Wendy Murcia, Marie-Jo Lemaire, Pierre Grenier, Natalina Ciarlo, Zeyna Erdogan and Abe Navarro

Allison TaylorCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Teamsters Union Local 419

Michael HancockCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Teamsters Union, Local 419

Michael HancockCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Teston Pipeline Limited

Michael HandlerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Board of Health for the Toronto Health Unit

Fred FisherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Monica TessierCounsel
1 appearance
Michelle GibbsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the City of Brantford

Heidi de VriesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the City of Cambridge

Steve MathesonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay

Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the City of Vaughan

Nancy SalernoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Law Society of Upper Canada

Andrea GonsalvesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Ottawa Hospital

Jacquie DagherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Ottawa Police Service

David PatacairkCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board

Donald JarvisCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Timmins and District Hospital

Jodi RussellAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Timmins Police Services

Elizabeth MontpetitCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.

Ted KovacsCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Trentway Wager / Coach Canada

Craig LawrenceCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent United Steelworkers of America, Local 9597

Shaheen HiraniCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Cheryl FoyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University of Windsor

David AmyotCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Victorian Order of Nurses

Sarah CrossleyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Agnes WintersingerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, York Police Services Board

Stephen MaioCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Catholic District School Board, Carrado Maltese, John Shain, Norma Rios, Jose Cayanan, and Sylvie Talarico

Paul MatthewsCounsel
1 appearance

for The Town of Parry Sound

Charles LoopstraCounsel
1 appearance

for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Gurjit BrarCounsel
1 appearance

for Total Security Management

David McKechnieCounsel
1 appearance

for Unicco Facility Services Canada Company

Melanie McNaughtCounsel
1 appearance

for Unifor Canada, Local 1285, Leon Rideout and Ardis Snow, Respondents

Niki LundquistCounsel
1 appearance

Next Friend for Madison Reece

Rachel ChetwynAgent
1 appearance

Representative

Shaun CrymbleAgent
1 appearance

Representative for the Respondents

Judit SchonwaldAgent
1 appearance

Representative for Xiaorui Sun

Qizhi JiaoAgent
1 appearance

Respondent

Cheryl FoyCounsel
1 appearance
Iain DonnellCounsel
1 appearance
Herman GrewalSelf-represented
1 appearance
Steven WilsonCounsel
1 appearance
Joyce TravagliniAgent
1 appearance
Said KarimiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paula RusakCounsel
1 appearance

Respondents

William WatsonCounsel
1 appearance
Christopher McClellandCounsel
1 appearance
Jordan KirknessCounsel
1 appearance

Self-represented

Timothy OgilvieSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ronald IhaszSelf-represented
1 appearance
Christine ClarkeSelf-represented
1 appearance

667

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

3.8

cases/mo

HRTO663(99%)

OPEHT4(1%)

Decision types

motion

611

trial

/Adjudicator

Douglas Sanderson — Vice-Chair

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Employment and Labour Law

Other Tribunals

Landlord and Tenant

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Indigenous Legal Issues

Family and Matrimonial Law

Health Law

Douglas Sanderson

Vice-Chair·Ontario Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal·Since 2011

OPEHT HRTO

667

cases · 15 yrs · HRTO, OPEHT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 491Adjudicator· 82Vice-chair· 67Adjudicator· 18Vice Chair· 5Vice-Chair· 4

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 16, 2015

Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the Tribunal ignored evidence of bullying and harassment and violated its own rules.

Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1374

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 15, 2015

Request to amend human rights application to add reprisal allegations granted in part.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal against the respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's president repeatedly contacted her after she filed the application, causing her emotional stress.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

Carlisle v. Perfect Renovations Group, 2015 HRTO 1371

Robert Tarantino

In Private Practice6 cases2015–2019

Kathryn Bird

In Private Practice43 cases2009–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 7, 2015

Human rights application dismissed; shift cancellations were operational and single derogatory comments did not constitute harassment.

The applicant, a part-time Registered Nurse, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed her shifts were cancelled for discriminatory reasons and that co-workers made derogatory racial and ethnic comments.

The Tribunal found that the shift cancellations were based on valid operational reasons, specifically low patient census and the applicant's low seniority.

The application was dismissed.

Pereira v. Humber River Regional Hospital, 2015 HRTO 1340

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 30, 2015

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to connect alleged unfairness to prohibited grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and its personnel regarding the handling of her previous applications.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a prohibited ground.

The applicant's response reiterated her allegations of administrative unfairness without establishing a nexus to her race, colour, or other protected grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction.

Lin v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2015 HRTO 1298

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 1, 2015

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for lack of standing and excessive delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked standing to bring an application on behalf of unnamed students, as she did not have their consent and could not rely on implied consent.

Lois-Ann Kohar v. The Hamilton Wentworth District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1158

Tanya Chin

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2015

Reconsideration granted and dismissal set aside where applicant asserted she did not receive notice.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to file a Reply.

The applicant submitted that she did not receive the Tribunal's notice requiring her to file submissions.

Hammadieh v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2015 HRTO 1144

Iain Donnell

7 cases2008–2023

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 26, 2015

Applicant ordered to disclose relevant documents and confirm Reply materials or face dismissal.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to comply with document disclosure rules and file a Reply.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had filed materials intended as a Reply but missed the deadline for the formal form.

Soroush v. Ja’fari Islamic Housing, 2015 HRTO 1130

Douglas Sanderson

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

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that a full and final release had been signed.

After the applicant's representative withdrew, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Response.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence or the Case Assessment Direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

Melanson v. Tecumseh Cab & Lakeshore Taxi Inc., 2015 HRTO 1127

Susan Ursel

44 cases1985–2024

Douglas Sanderson

In Private Practice16 cases2015–2018

Request for early production of employment file denied where respondents already disclosed consulting contract and invoices.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested a summary hearing.

The applicant sought an interim order for early production of his employment file to clarify his employment status before filing a Reply and Response to the summary hearing request.

Bryn Hendricks v. Egale Canada Human Rights Trust and Helen Kennedy, 2015 HRTO 1125

Jacquie Dagher

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application dismissed under section 34(11) due to concurrent civil action seeking same remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the respondents.

The Tribunal found that the civil action arose from the same facts and sought remedies for the same alleged Code violations.

As section 34(11) is intended to prevent duplicative litigation, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Baillu v. Bruyere Continuing Care, 2015 HRTO 992

Douglas Sanderson

Request for Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry denied as standard document production process applies.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, alleged discrimination based on race after being accused of workplace violence.

He filed a Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry to obtain evidence of an alleged conspiracy against him.

Amazan v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 991

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 23, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide requested status update.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of age.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the completion of a related proceeding before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

After the applicant and his counsel failed to respond to the Tribunal's requests for a status update by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Bova v. Akwesasne Mohawk Police Services, 2015 HRTO 977

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 22, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for union settlement is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was waiting for her union to negotiate a settlement with her employer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that waiting for another process to conclude does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Paul v. Grand River Hospital (Specialized Mental Health Unit), 2015 HRTO 971

Wade Poziomka

55 cases2011–2017

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2015

Tribunal retains jurisdiction over employment dispute pending further evidence and denies request to amend application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the respondent, a television broadcasting enterprise, falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that processing of the application continue.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request to amend the application to add place of origin and citizenship as prohibited grounds, finding no proper basis for the amendment.

Emile v. The World Impact Ministries Inc., 2015 HRTO 964

Ian Johncox

In Private Practice2 cases2012–2015

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 7, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment allegations for delay, finding no series of incidents and no good faith explanation for the delay.

Dankevy v. Valiant Rental Properties Limited, 2015 HRTO 898

Kathryn Bird

In Private Practice43 cases2009–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 17, 2015

Tribunal dismisses applicant's procedural requests for production, adding respondents, and ordering inquiries in discrimination complaint.

The applicant, a former student expelled from the respondent university's Social Work Program, brought an application alleging discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests by the applicant.

Barksey v. Laurentian University, 2015 HRTO 814

Paul Matthews

8 cases2009–2018

Jerry Raso

73 cases1990–2024

Devin Paul

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 8, 2015

Human rights application partially dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence of racial discrimination.

The applicant, a black teacher, alleged that workplace violence complaints filed against him by several co-workers were motivated by racial discrimination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several individual respondents, finding no evidence linking their actions to the applicant's race.

Amazan v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 751

Jonathan Maier

8 cases2012–2023

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 27, 2015

Human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate disability consolidated and deferred pending concurrent grievance arbitration.

The respondents sought to defer the applications pending a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

Pooler v. U.S. Steel Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 695

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 26, 2015

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent direction from the Tribunal regarding her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Jennifer Benstead v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 684

Holly Walbourne

18 cases2013–2019

Douglas Sanderson