Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 16, 2012

Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant explained the delay by stating he initially filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which informed him it lacked jurisdiction and directed him to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that even accounting for a postal strike, the applicant had sufficient time to file within the one-year limitation period but failed to do so.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Eskaros v. Canada Post, 2012 HRTO 753

Douglas Sanderson

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) on the basis that 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.

Phillips-Anderson v. BACU Local 28 Ontario Local 28 Bricklayers & Masons Local 28 Ontario Benefits Trust Fund, 2012 HRTO 743

M. Paul Morrissey

14 cases2007–2025

Douglas Sanderson

School board's refusal to accommodate alternating bus schedule for joint custody student constituted family status discrimination.

The applicant, a student whose parents share joint custody and live in separate residences, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the school board and transportation consortium refused to allow him to take different school buses to his parents' respective homes on alternating weeks.

The respondents relied on a Primary Address Policy, arguing that alternating schedules posed safety and operational risks.

The Tribunal found the policy resulted in constructive discrimination because of family status.

The Tribunal further held that the respondents failed to meet their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate, as they did not assess the individual request or demonstrate that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship.

The respondents were ordered to amend their transportation policies to provide for the accommodation of students subject to custody arrangements.

J.O. v. London District Catholic School Board, 2012 HRTO 732

Steve Lavender

23 cases2009–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 2, 2012

Human rights application dismissed due to mandatory statutory bar against duplicate civil proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation for chronic migraines.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application relied on the same factual context and sought human rights damages.

As section 34(11) creates a mandatory bar against duplicate proceedings, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Michael Joseph LeBlanc v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 673

Summary hearing to dismiss human rights application denied; applicant's evidence of differential treatment warranted merits hearing.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and age after being required to take a mandatory Health Assessment Course following a patient complaint, which she claimed led to her forced retirement.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had pointed to evidence that could link the respondents' actions to the alleged Code grounds, including differential treatment of black and older employees regarding remedial action and accommodation.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to a merits hearing.

Barry v. St. Michael’s Hospital, 2012 HRTO 632

Ryan Wozniak

In Private Practice25 cases2012–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 27, 2012

Human rights application alleging discriminatory failure to hire dismissed for delay and no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age after the respondent declined to hire him for a permanent position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations predating March 21, 2010 were untimely and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Regarding the timely allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success as he failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's decision not to hire him to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

Bartley v. Cott Corporation, 2012 HRTO 630

Michael S. Richards

4 cases2009–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 26, 2012

Tribunal ordered a preliminary hearing to address timeliness, parallel proceedings, and prior releases.

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

The respondents raised several preliminary issues, including timeliness, parallel civil actions, prior settlements with releases, and whether certain individual respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal ordered a one-day preliminary hearing to address these issues, including whether the application should be dismissed or deferred under the Human Rights Code.

Frank Nyitray v. Ryerson University Students’ Union, 2012 HRTO 625

Glenn Christie

37 cases1998–2020

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 21, 2012

Request for document production denied as documents were not arguably relevant or request was speculative.

The applicant, a firefighter, filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of several documents, including the employer's driving and insurance policies, his driver's abstract, notes, and expert reports related to the decision not to allow him to drive fire vehicles.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the policies were not arguably relevant, the request for notes and expert reports was speculative, and the applicant could obtain his own driver's abstract.

Oxley v. Vaughan (City), 2012 HRTO 582

Marni Tolensky

Practising Law - Employed18 cases2011–2016

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 14, 2012

Human rights application dismissed; bus operator's questioning of passenger's transfer use was justified and non-discriminatory.

The applicant, a black Canadian, alleged that a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus operator discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour during three incidents involving the use of a transit transfer.

The applicant claimed she was unfairly singled out and questioned about her route, and that the operator later retaliated when the applicant took her picture for alleged racial profiling.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, but the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation.

The operator was justified in questioning the applicant's destination because the applicant was not taking the most direct route as required by TTC transfer rules.

The Application was dismissed.

Cathy Ruggles v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 527

Susan McCorquodale

Not Practising Law11 cases2010–2017

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 7, 2012

Tribunal dismisses discriminatory termination claim but allows workplace harassment claim involving racial comments to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of employment, finding no evidence connecting the dismissal to a prohibited ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as the applicant provided evidence that the individual respondent made racial comments.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions on the timeliness of the harassment allegations.

Widdis v. Great West Life Realty Inc., 2012 HRTO 488

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 5, 2012

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and family status.

After requesting to reschedule the hearing, the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions to provide mutually agreeable hearing dates.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and dismissed the application.

Ernell Ellis v. Modatek Systems, 2012 HRTO 464

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent OLRB review of employment standards decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was already addressed by the WSIB and an employment standards officer.

The applicant had also filed an Application for Review to the OLRB regarding the employment standards officer's decision.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application but ordered it deferred pending the completion of the OLRB review, as the OLRB has the authority to apply the Code and would likely deal with overlapping issues regarding accommodation and the termination of employment.

Ikrar Mughal v. 2138894 Ontario Inc. o/a Metro Protective Services, 2012 HRTO 425

Peter Staszynski

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application dismissed as barred by concurrent civil proceeding seeking remedies for same alleged discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex (pregnancy).

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the application was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil statement of claim sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements and arose from the same factual context.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11).

Printha Pathmanathan v. Jamac Sales Limited and Don McBride, 2012 HRTO 417

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 27, 2012

Tribunal orders respondents to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules but denies applicant's document production request.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents related to a complaint before the Ontario College of Pharmacists and directing the respondents to file witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the request for document production, finding the applicant failed to establish arguable relevance.

However, the Tribunal found the respondents had failed to comply with their pre-hearing disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, and directed them to immediately file the required materials or face potential exclusion of their witnesses at the hearing.

Tai Q. Tran v. Welcome Pharmacy (Queen) Ltd. operating as Parkdale Guardian Drugs, Angelina Lam and Andrew Ng, 2012 HRTO 398

Jeanine Watt

In Private Practice6 cases2012–2013

Douglas Sanderson

Deadline for pre-hearing document disclosure extended as respondent would suffer no prejudice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking an extension of the deadline to deliver arguably relevant documents under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to comply or provide an explanation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent would not suffer prejudice, as the hearing was over three months away.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, extending the deadline to February 29, 2012, but declined the applicant's request for a longer extension to April 2, 2012, due to the lack of explanation.

Faye Hendy v. Nartech Metal Products Ltd., 2012 HRTO 379

Douglas Sanderson

Request to dismiss denied; vague Memorandum of Understanding did not constitute a release of Code claims.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding.

The applicant argued he signed the document under duress to obtain his Record of Employment and vacation pay, and that the document did not constitute a release.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that the vague language in the Memorandum could not reasonably be interpreted as a full and final release of the applicant's claims under the Human Rights Code.

Corey Hall v. 1806141 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 378

Kenneth J. Kelertas

2 cases2012–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 17, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing, but the applicant failed to attend.

After confirming that the applicant had notice of the hearing and waiting the customary 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Khan v. Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 347

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 16, 2012

Request to proceed granted; preliminary hearing scheduled to address section 45.1 dismissal.

The applicant filed a Request to proceed with their human rights application after it was deferred pending a union grievance.

The grievance was dismissed by a labour arbitrator.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed but scheduled a preliminary hearing to receive submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

Ari-Pekka Korppi v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, 2012 HRTO 338

Lori Kent

Donna D’Andrea

16 cases2000–2017

Aliamisse Mundulai

4 cases2008–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 15, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant and counsel walked out of summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination, reprisal, and breach of settlement after she was not selected for a permanent part-time banquet server position.

The Tribunal scheduled a Summary Hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

During the teleconference hearing, the applicant's counsel refused to follow the adjudicator's procedural directions, accused the adjudicator of bias, and demanded his recusal.

When the adjudicator declined to recuse himself, the applicant and her counsel hung up and abandoned the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, and alternatively found that it had no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to provide any evidence contradicting the respondent's explanation that the successful candidate had longer tenure.

Akalework Sebhatu v. Starwood Canada Corp. o/a The Westin Harbour Castle, 2012 HRTO 329

Patricia G. Murray

35 cases1990–2017

Gurjit Brar

65 cases2005–2015

Cathy Pike

55 cases2003–2016

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 2, 2012

Hearing on merits to proceed as scheduled, with separate hearing to follow regarding dismissal request.

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

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB decision had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the WSIB sought to intervene and requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing to prepare.

The Tribunal declined to adjourn the hearing entirely, instead ordering that the scheduled dates proceed solely to receive evidence on the merits, with a separate hearing to be scheduled later to address the respondent's dismissal request and the interventions.

Joseph Whitwell v. U.S. Steel Canada Inc. – Hamilton Works, 2012 HRTO 240

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 OntarioApr 16, 2012

Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant explained the delay by stating he initially filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which informed him it lacked jurisdiction and directed him to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that even accounting for a postal strike, the applicant had sufficient time to file within the one-year limitation period but failed to do so.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Eskaros v. Canada Post, 2012 HRTO 753

Douglas Sanderson

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) on the basis that 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.

Phillips-Anderson v. BACU Local 28 Ontario Local 28 Bricklayers & Masons Local 28 Ontario Benefits Trust Fund, 2012 HRTO 743

M. Paul Morrissey

14 cases2007–2025

Douglas Sanderson

School board's refusal to accommodate alternating bus schedule for joint custody student constituted family status discrimination.

The respondents relied on a Primary Address Policy, arguing that alternating schedules posed safety and operational risks.

The Tribunal found the policy resulted in constructive discrimination because of family status.

The respondents were ordered to amend their transportation policies to provide for the accommodation of students subject to custody arrangements.

J.O. v. London District Catholic School Board, 2012 HRTO 732

Steve Lavender

23 cases2009–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 2, 2012

Human rights application dismissed due to mandatory statutory bar against duplicate civil proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding accommodation for chronic migraines.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application relied on the same factual context and sought human rights damages.

As section 34(11) creates a mandatory bar against duplicate proceedings, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Michael Joseph LeBlanc v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 673

Paulette Haynes

5 cases2009–2015

Hadiya Roderique

5 cases2011–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 28, 2012

Summary hearing to dismiss human rights application denied; applicant's evidence of differential treatment warranted merits hearing.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded the application had a reasonable prospect of success and directed it to proceed to a merits hearing.

Barry v. St. Michael’s Hospital, 2012 HRTO 632

Ryan Wozniak

In Private Practice25 cases2012–2026

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 27, 2012

Human rights application alleging discriminatory failure to hire dismissed for delay and no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age after the respondent declined to hire him for a permanent position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations predating March 21, 2010 were untimely and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

Bartley v. Cott Corporation, 2012 HRTO 630

Michael S. Richards

4 cases2009–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 26, 2012

Tribunal ordered a preliminary hearing to address timeliness, parallel proceedings, and prior releases.

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

The respondents raised several preliminary issues, including timeliness, parallel civil actions, prior settlements with releases, and whether certain individual respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal ordered a one-day preliminary hearing to address these issues, including whether the application should be dismissed or deferred under the Human Rights Code.

Frank Nyitray v. Ryerson University Students’ Union, 2012 HRTO 625

Glenn Christie

37 cases1998–2020

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 21, 2012

Request for document production denied as documents were not arguably relevant or request was speculative.

Oxley v. Vaughan (City), 2012 HRTO 582

Marni Tolensky

Practising Law - Employed18 cases2011–2016

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 14, 2012

Human rights application dismissed; bus operator's questioning of passenger's transfer use was justified and non-discriminatory.

The applicant claimed she was unfairly singled out and questioned about her route, and that the operator later retaliated when the applicant took her picture for alleged racial profiling.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, but the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation.

The operator was justified in questioning the applicant's destination because the applicant was not taking the most direct route as required by TTC transfer rules.

The Application was dismissed.

Cathy Ruggles v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 527

Susan McCorquodale

Not Practising Law11 cases2010–2017

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 7, 2012

Tribunal dismisses discriminatory termination claim but allows workplace harassment claim involving racial comments to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of employment, finding no evidence connecting the dismissal to a prohibited ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as the applicant provided evidence that the individual respondent made racial comments.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions on the timeliness of the harassment allegations.

Widdis v. Great West Life Realty Inc., 2012 HRTO 488

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 5, 2012

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and family status.

After requesting to reschedule the hearing, the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions to provide mutually agreeable hearing dates.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and dismissed the application.

Ernell Ellis v. Modatek Systems, 2012 HRTO 464

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent OLRB review of employment standards decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was already addressed by the WSIB and an employment standards officer.

The applicant had also filed an Application for Review to the OLRB regarding the employment standards officer's decision.

Ikrar Mughal v. 2138894 Ontario Inc. o/a Metro Protective Services, 2012 HRTO 425

Peter Staszynski

Douglas Sanderson

Human rights application dismissed as barred by concurrent civil proceeding seeking remedies for same alleged discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex (pregnancy).

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the application was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil statement of claim sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements and arose from the same factual context.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11).

Printha Pathmanathan v. Jamac Sales Limited and Don McBride, 2012 HRTO 417

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 27, 2012

Tribunal orders respondents to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules but denies applicant's document production request.

The Tribunal denied the request for document production, finding the applicant failed to establish arguable relevance.

Tai Q. Tran v. Welcome Pharmacy (Queen) Ltd. operating as Parkdale Guardian Drugs, Angelina Lam and Andrew Ng, 2012 HRTO 398

Jeanine Watt

In Private Practice6 cases2012–2013

Douglas Sanderson

Deadline for pre-hearing document disclosure extended as respondent would suffer no prejudice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking an extension of the deadline to deliver arguably relevant documents under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to comply or provide an explanation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent would not suffer prejudice, as the hearing was over three months away.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, extending the deadline to February 29, 2012, but declined the applicant's request for a longer extension to April 2, 2012, due to the lack of explanation.

Faye Hendy v. Nartech Metal Products Ltd., 2012 HRTO 379

Douglas Sanderson

Request to dismiss denied; vague Memorandum of Understanding did not constitute a release of Code claims.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding.

The applicant argued he signed the document under duress to obtain his Record of Employment and vacation pay, and that the document did not constitute a release.

Corey Hall v. 1806141 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 378

Kenneth J. Kelertas

2 cases2012–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 17, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing, but the applicant failed to attend.

After confirming that the applicant had notice of the hearing and waiting the customary 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Khan v. Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 347

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 16, 2012

Request to proceed granted; preliminary hearing scheduled to address section 45.1 dismissal.

The applicant filed a Request to proceed with their human rights application after it was deferred pending a union grievance.

The grievance was dismissed by a labour arbitrator.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed but scheduled a preliminary hearing to receive submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

Ari-Pekka Korppi v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, 2012 HRTO 338

Lori Kent

Donna D’Andrea

16 cases2000–2017

Aliamisse Mundulai

4 cases2008–2012

Douglas Sanderson

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 15, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant and counsel walked out of summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination, reprisal, and breach of settlement after she was not selected for a permanent part-time banquet server position.

The Tribunal scheduled a Summary Hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

During the teleconference hearing, the applicant's counsel refused to follow the adjudicator's procedural directions, accused the adjudicator of bias, and demanded his recusal.

When the adjudicator declined to recuse himself, the applicant and her counsel hung up and abandoned the hearing.

Akalework Sebhatu v. Starwood Canada Corp. o/a The Westin Harbour Castle, 2012 HRTO 329

Patricia G. Murray

35 cases1990–2017

Gurjit Brar

65 cases2005–2015

Cathy Pike

55 cases2003–2016

Douglas Sanderson