Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 11, 2015

Human rights application dismissed against municipal respondents for failing to allege specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that several Beck taxis refused her service because she has a service animal.

She also named the Toronto Licensing Commission, the City of Toronto, and Municipal Licensing & Standards as respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the municipal respondents, as the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the municipal respondents, finding it plain and obvious that the application did not raise issues within its jurisdiction regarding them, and ordered the application to be served on the taxi company.

Guillemette v. Beck Taxi – 1189930 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 192

Vincent Panetta

9 cases2013–2016

Douglas Sanderson

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability regarding a job competition.

The respondent requested deferral of the application because the same facts and human rights issues were the subject of an ongoing union grievance scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap and the concurrent jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators over human rights claims.

Given v. Peterborough (City), 2015 HRTO 171

Douglas Sanderson

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 services because of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not identify specific acts of discrimination or support the allegation of reprisal.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Adrian Feudale v. Bellwood Health Services Inc., 2015 HRTO 169

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 4, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond regarding CCAA stay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, family status, and reprisal.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he wished to continue the application in light of a stay of proceedings imposed under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal within the specified 30-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Martin Carrington v. U.S. Steel of Canada, Lake Erie Works, 2015 HRTO 159

Sunira Chaudhri

In Private Practice15 cases2012–2025

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 2, 2015

Adjournment request denied as counsel's double-booking did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because their counsel was double-booked for another Tribunal matter.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing dates had been known for over four months and that the request was made well past the 14-day deadline for rescheduling requests.

Finding that a double-booking does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting a late adjournment, the Tribunal denied the request.

Sachchu Khan v. 1742248 Ontario Inc. O/A The Harbord Room, 2015 HRTO 151

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 30, 2015

Interim requests for adjudicator removal and adjournment dismissed; request to exclude witnesses granted.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought several interim requests, including a request to remove the adjudicator for a reasonable apprehension of bias, a request to adjourn the hearing to pursue a civil claim, and a request to exclude two of the respondent's proposed witnesses.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias and adjournment requests, finding no factual or legal basis for them.

The adjudicator granted the request to exclude the two witnesses, as their expected testimony related to the events leading to the applicant's arrest, which had already been determined in a criminal proceeding and could not be re-litigated.

The adjudicator also directed the applicant to indicate whether he wished to make oral submissions regarding the respondent's request to dismiss the application for abuse of process.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 145

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 22, 2015

Requests for reconsideration of interim decision regarding document production and adding allegations dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to order production of a police policy manual chapter and declined to add allegations of torture and inhuman treatment regarding the denial of warm clothing while incarcerated.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the interim decision was not final and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Furthermore, the applicant presented no new facts, the respondent had already confirmed the policy manual's validity, and the clothing allegations had been previously dismissed at a summary hearing for lacking a connection to a prohibited ground.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 97

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 20, 2015

Pre-hearing document production ordered for arguably relevant employment records; general email search denied.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of her Record of Employment, timesheets, schedules, and emails.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the production of the ROE, timesheets, schedules, and specific emails between the applicant and a named individual.

The request for a general review of the applicant's email account was denied as a fishing expedition.

Sarah Zdybel v. 2252316 Ontario Inc. and Lois Barron-Ralph, 2015 HRTO 77

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 15, 2015

Applicant ordered to remove disclosed video from internet after violating implied undertaking rule.

The respondent requested an order imposing sanctions on the applicant for violating Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure by posting a video disclosed during pre-hearing discovery on the internet.

The applicant admitted to posting the video but argued that Rule 3.3 was unconstitutional and that the public had a right to know about the respondent's alleged misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the applicant violated Rule 3.3, which codifies the implied undertaking rule, and that the constitutional challenge was not properly brought.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to remove the material from the internet and warned that further breaches could result in the dismissal of the application.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 60

Mathieu Duceppe

5 cases2015–2016

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 13, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent employer is federally regulated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer, an interprovincial cash-in-transit business.

The organizational respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its business is federally regulated.

The applicant conceded that the issues were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that any claim must be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Corriveau v. Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation, 2015 HRTO 42

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file pre-hearing disclosures.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, gender identity, and reprisal.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file pre-hearing disclosures.

The respondents complied, but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Innes v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 41

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

Applicant ordered to cease public disclosure of litigation documents pursuant to Rule 3.3.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to cease and desist public disclosure of documents provided for the sole purpose of litigation.

The applicant had disclosed documents and sent emails to community members regarding the litigation.

The Tribunal found the applicant in breach of Rule 3.3, which prohibits the use of disclosed documents for any purpose other than the proceeding.

The applicant was ordered to comply with Rule 3.3 and the respondent was ordered to immediately comply with its disclosure obligations.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 36

Tom Rooke

2 cases1995–2015

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 8, 2015

Request to remove intervenor union denied as union has an interest in the application.

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

The applicant's union filed a Notice of Intervention.

The applicant brought a request for an order to remove the intervenor union, arguing the union did not assist him and he was not employed long enough to become a member.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit, particularly where the applicant seeks reinstatement which may affect the collective agreement.

Hanssan Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 23

Jack Sullens

6 cases2000–2026

Douglas Sanderson

Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied as WSIB appeal not unduly delayed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of her WSIB appeal.

She argued that the WSIB process had become unduly delayed and that continued deferral was causing her psychological distress.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no evidence that the WSIB appeal was delayed beyond normal expectations, and noting that the medical evidence provided did not establish that continued deferral would cause harm.

Mary Lou Groen v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2014 HRTO 1833

Douglas Sanderson

In Private Practice10 cases2013–2019

Respondent deemed to have accepted discrimination allegations after failing to file a Response.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application, waived all rights to notice or participation, and scheduled a case management conference call to determine next steps for the applicant.

Roberto Carl Rodriguez v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1831

Kiel Ardal

Karen Sanchez

4 cases2014–2025

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 22, 2014

Request to bifurcate human rights hearing into liability and remedy stages denied.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding housing accommodation requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy stages.

The respondent argued that the applicants sought unusual and complex remedies and that most witnesses would only testify regarding remedy.

The applicants opposed the request, arguing that all their witnesses would testify on liability and that bifurcation would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the requested remedies arose from the liability issue of whether the respondent adequately addressed the alleged harassment, and that bifurcation would not result in a more expeditious hearing.

Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc., 2014 HRTO 1813

Mindy Noble

Practising Law - Employed43 cases2010–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 19, 2014

Request to add former employee as individual respondent to human rights application granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a former employee of the organizational respondent as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The application alleged the former employee harassed her because of her relationships with racialized people.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation, the individual's conduct was a central issue, and there was no apparent prejudice.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.

Budd v. Howell Stamping Inc., 2014 HRTO 1802

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 18, 2014

Tribunal orders respondent to request arguably relevant medical forms from Crown; other disclosure requests dismissed.

The applicant filed three Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking document disclosure, exclusion of evidence, and a declaration of guilt against the respondent police services board.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to request the applicant's Prisoner's Medical Forms from the Crown, as they were arguably relevant and the applicant claimed they were in the Crown's possession.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for a policy document, video evidence that no longer existed, and the exclusion of late-disclosed documents, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1799

Guy Farrell

34 cases1993–2021

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 16, 2014

Request to reactivate deferred application denied because a second related civil action remained unresolved.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of two related civil actions.

The applicant provided evidence that one of the civil actions had settled, but provided no information regarding the second action against the respondent and its insurer.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the original deferral order required both civil actions to be concluded before the application could proceed.

Andreas Kentros v. Ballantry Homes Limited, 2014 HRTO 1792

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

Michael Hines

15 cases1983–2016

Geri Sanson

42 cases1992–2015

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 18, 2015

Human rights application alleging creed discrimination by school board dismissed for lack of standing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the preliminary issue of standing.

The Tribunal held that the Human Rights Code does not permit individuals to bring public interest applications regarding matters that do not directly engage their own rights.

R.C. v. District School Board of Niagara, 2015 HRTO 212

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 11, 2015

Human rights application dismissed against municipal respondents for failing to allege specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that several Beck taxis refused her service because she has a service animal.

She also named the Toronto Licensing Commission, the City of Toronto, and Municipal Licensing & Standards as respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the municipal respondents, as the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

Guillemette v. Beck Taxi – 1189930 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 192

Vincent Panetta

9 cases2013–2016

Douglas Sanderson

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability regarding a job competition.

The respondent requested deferral of the application because the same facts and human rights issues were the subject of an ongoing union grievance scheduled for arbitration.

Given v. Peterborough (City), 2015 HRTO 171

Douglas Sanderson

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 services because of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not identify specific acts of discrimination or support the allegation of reprisal.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Adrian Feudale v. Bellwood Health Services Inc., 2015 HRTO 169

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 4, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond regarding CCAA stay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, family status, and reprisal.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal within the specified 30-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Martin Carrington v. U.S. Steel of Canada, Lake Erie Works, 2015 HRTO 159

Sunira Chaudhri

In Private Practice15 cases2012–2025

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 2, 2015

Adjournment request denied as counsel's double-booking did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because their counsel was double-booked for another Tribunal matter.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing dates had been known for over four months and that the request was made well past the 14-day deadline for rescheduling requests.

Finding that a double-booking does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting a late adjournment, the Tribunal denied the request.

Sachchu Khan v. 1742248 Ontario Inc. O/A The Harbord Room, 2015 HRTO 151

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 30, 2015

Interim requests for adjudicator removal and adjournment dismissed; request to exclude witnesses granted.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias and adjournment requests, finding no factual or legal basis for them.

The adjudicator also directed the applicant to indicate whether he wished to make oral submissions regarding the respondent's request to dismiss the application for abuse of process.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 145

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 22, 2015

Requests for reconsideration of interim decision regarding document production and adding allegations dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the interim decision was not final and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 97

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 20, 2015

Pre-hearing document production ordered for arguably relevant employment records; general email search denied.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the production of the ROE, timesheets, schedules, and specific emails between the applicant and a named individual.

The request for a general review of the applicant's email account was denied as a fishing expedition.

Sarah Zdybel v. 2252316 Ontario Inc. and Lois Barron-Ralph, 2015 HRTO 77

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 15, 2015

Applicant ordered to remove disclosed video from internet after violating implied undertaking rule.

The applicant admitted to posting the video but argued that Rule 3.3 was unconstitutional and that the public had a right to know about the respondent's alleged misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the applicant violated Rule 3.3, which codifies the implied undertaking rule, and that the constitutional challenge was not properly brought.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to remove the material from the internet and warned that further breaches could result in the dismissal of the application.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 60

Mathieu Duceppe

5 cases2015–2016

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 13, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent employer is federally regulated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer, an interprovincial cash-in-transit business.

The organizational respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its business is federally regulated.

The applicant conceded that the issues were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that any claim must be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Corriveau v. Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation, 2015 HRTO 42

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file pre-hearing disclosures.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, gender identity, and reprisal.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file pre-hearing disclosures.

The respondents complied, but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Innes v. Metro Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 41

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

Applicant ordered to cease public disclosure of litigation documents pursuant to Rule 3.3.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to cease and desist public disclosure of documents provided for the sole purpose of litigation.

The applicant had disclosed documents and sent emails to community members regarding the litigation.

The Tribunal found the applicant in breach of Rule 3.3, which prohibits the use of disclosed documents for any purpose other than the proceeding.

The applicant was ordered to comply with Rule 3.3 and the respondent was ordered to immediately comply with its disclosure obligations.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 36

Tom Rooke

2 cases1995–2015

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 8, 2015

Request to remove intervenor union denied as union has an interest in the application.

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

The applicant's union filed a Notice of Intervention.

The applicant brought a request for an order to remove the intervenor union, arguing the union did not assist him and he was not employed long enough to become a member.

Hanssan Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 23

Jack Sullens

6 cases2000–2026

Douglas Sanderson

Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied as WSIB appeal not unduly delayed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of her WSIB appeal.

She argued that the WSIB process had become unduly delayed and that continued deferral was causing her psychological distress.

Mary Lou Groen v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2014 HRTO 1833

Douglas Sanderson

In Private Practice10 cases2013–2019

Respondent deemed to have accepted discrimination allegations after failing to file a Response.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

Roberto Carl Rodriguez v. Qualified Metal Fabricators Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1831

Kiel Ardal

Karen Sanchez

4 cases2014–2025

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 22, 2014

Request to bifurcate human rights hearing into liability and remedy stages denied.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding housing accommodation requested an order to bifurcate the hearing into separate liability and remedy stages.

The respondent argued that the applicants sought unusual and complex remedies and that most witnesses would only testify regarding remedy.

The applicants opposed the request, arguing that all their witnesses would testify on liability and that bifurcation would cause undue hardship.

Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc., 2014 HRTO 1813

Mindy Noble

Practising Law - Employed43 cases2010–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 19, 2014

Request to add former employee as individual respondent to human rights application granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add a former employee of the organizational respondent as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The application alleged the former employee harassed her because of her relationships with racialized people.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation, the individual's conduct was a central issue, and there was no apparent prejudice.

The request to add the individual respondent was granted.

Budd v. Howell Stamping Inc., 2014 HRTO 1802

Holly Walbourne

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 18, 2014

Tribunal orders respondent to request arguably relevant medical forms from Crown; other disclosure requests dismissed.

The applicant filed three Requests for an Order During Proceedings seeking document disclosure, exclusion of evidence, and a declaration of guilt against the respondent police services board.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to request the applicant's Prisoner's Medical Forms from the Crown, as they were arguably relevant and the applicant claimed they were in the Crown's possession.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for a policy document, video evidence that no longer existed, and the exclusion of late-disclosed documents, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1799

Guy Farrell

34 cases1993–2021

Douglas Sanderson