Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 2, 2013

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to concurrent civil proceeding seeking Code remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability, claiming he was unfairly criticized and terminated after a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding in Small Claims Court seeking Code remedies based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action explicitly raised Code-related interests and sought remedial redress for the alleged human rights concerns.

As the Tribunal has no discretion when an application falls within section 34(11), the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Tewari v. V.G. Packers Limited o/a VG Meats, 2013 HRTO 1642

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 30, 2013

Union granted intervenor status in member's employment discrimination application.

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

The applicant's union filed a request to intervene, citing concerns that the allegations might impact its members and the collective agreement.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its standard practice of granting intervention status to a bargaining agent in employment discrimination cases absent exceptional circumstances.

Kashmir Singh v. Olymel, 2013 HRTO 1641

Robert Leck

2 cases2013–2022

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 26, 2013

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel Ontario Labour Relations Board appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and disability, culminating in his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had already filed an appeal with the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an Employment Standards Act claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings were virtually identical and raised overlapping factual and remedial issues.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the OLRB matter.

Clive Perreira v. Vins Plastics Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1620

Ena Chadha

Respondent given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application or face default proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

Yvonne Gaudet v. Brampton Bingo Country, 2013 HRTO 1602

Ena Chadha

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

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

The Tribunal sent multiple communications to the applicant and her counsel requesting mutually agreeable dates to reschedule the hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

Neither the applicant nor her counsel responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Fokes v. GMRI Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1601

Respondents' preliminary request for particulars and early document production denied as premature.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation.

Prior to filing their Response, the respondents requested an order for particulars and the early production of a tape recording referenced in the application.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to comprehend the allegations and file a response.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early production of the tape recording as premature, noting the respondents failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the standard rules for document exchange.

Nicole Allinson v. Delta Investigative Services and Joe Cabral, 2013 HRTO 1579

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 19, 2013

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application but later requested the Tribunal not to proceed because a civil action had been commenced.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

Silva v. Queensway Volkswagen Inc., 2013 HRTO 1571

Thomas Gorksy

1 case2013–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 17, 2013

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

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

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents based on the same facts, seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the application should be deferred because the respondents were moving to strike the civil claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code acts as an absolute bar to concurrent proceedings, regardless of the potential outcome of the civil action.

Trudel v. Marwood Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1564

John Gescher

Not Practising Law2 cases2011–2013

Blair McCreadie

17 cases2000–2015

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel civil action to avoid duplication.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, claiming he was denied services at an emergency shelter in retaliation for an ongoing civil action against the respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the civil action sought overlapping remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was active and the applicant intended to amend it to include the events alleged in the application, creating a risk of duplication.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action.

Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2013 HRTO 1544

Stephen C. Bernardo

3 cases2012–2013

Ena Chadha

In Private Practice16 cases2007–2021

Request for particulars prior to filing response denied as application contained sufficient detail.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Prior to filing its Response, the respondent requested an extension of time and an order for particulars, arguing the application lacked sufficient detail.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the application contained adequate information regarding the alleged facts and legal issues for the respondent to file a response.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response within 21 days.

Kovacs v. DBG Canada Limited, 2013 HRTO 1536

Raquel Chisholm

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 11, 2013

Tribunal declined to consider interim requests while application remained deferred pending grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add reprisal allegations and compel the respondent to continue an external investigator's retainer.

The application had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance procedures.

The Tribunal declined to consider the requests, noting that the grievance proceedings had not concluded and the application must remain deferred until a proper request to reactivate is filed under Rule 14.

Hongru Cao v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2013 HRTO 1523

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 30, 2013

Request for reconsideration of interim decision dismissed as Tribunal rules only permit reconsideration of final decisions.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request for an interim remedy to expedite her human rights application prior to an eviction proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure only permits reconsideration of final decisions, not interim ones.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it lacks the authority to review or stay the eviction order issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

Scott v. Otter Creek Co-operative Homes Inc., 2013 HRTO 1484

Zoya Trofimenko

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2007–2016

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2013

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability, specifically regarding discipline and dismissal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a workplace grievance seeking compensation and reinstatement for the same alleged unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings.

Rossi v. City of Toronto Court Services Division-York Civic Center, 2013 HRTO 1467

Michelle Wright

2 cases2008–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 16, 2013

Application reactivated and partially amended to include further details of police treatment and increased damages.

The applicant sought to reactivate and amend his human rights application against the Toronto Police Service following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal allowed amendments detailing the original allegations of discriminatory police treatment and an increased monetary claim, but denied proposed amendments regarding the applicant's experiences in detention and the conduct of Crown prosecutors, finding them outside the scope of the original application.

Sedat Yaylacam v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 1413

Pamela Leiper

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2003–2016

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 15, 2013

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance mediation/arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had already initiated an internal failure to accommodate complaint that was proceeding to binding mediation/arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the mediation/arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues.

Moallim v. CSH Westmount LTC Inc., 2013 HRTO 1404

Richard Miller

Practising Law - Employed43 cases2005–2025

Naomi Calla

32 cases2009–2017

Michele Wright

30 cases2008–2021

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 14, 2013

Request to add Board of Governors of Exhibition Place as a respondent granted on consent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race and colour.

The proposed respondent consented to being added, confirming it is responsible for security services at the relevant location and employs the security guards involved in the incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, added the respondent, and set a timeline for pleadings.

Adore v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1401

Ena Chadha

Human rights application reactivated following conclusion of ESA claim; amendment and production requests dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to reactivate her deferred human rights application, amend the application, and obtain a production order for certain documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the related Employment Standards Act claim had concluded.

The Tribunal declined to address the amendment request due to a lack of particulars and dismissed the production request as premature under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Sarbijit Kaur v. Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc., 2013 HRTO 1369

Michelle A. Alton

9 cases2012–2022

Ena Chadha

Human rights application reactivated after applicant withdrew related grievance.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related Ontario Labour Relations Board process.

The applicant withdrew his grievance, concluding the related procedures.

The respondent employer took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the parties to indicate whether they were amenable to mediation.

Andrew Jayashankar v. Hilton Toronto Hotel and Kiran Panikar, 2013 HRTO 1366

Steven Wilson

10 cases1997–2015

Joseph Tascona

9 cases1990–2016

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding her return to work and a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union and the employer were proceeding to arbitration on a grievance raising the same facts and issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondents and the union supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedures to avoid concurrent proceedings.

Tammy May v. Mill Creek Care Centre and Maureen Pauls, 2013 HRTO 1362

Robert Baldwin

11 cases2008–2023

Ena Chadha

Employment and Labour Law

Application remains deferred on consent pending completion of applicant's criminal appeal.

The applicant requested that his human rights application remain deferred pending the disposition of his appeal of a criminal conviction in absentia.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the appeal process.

Briggs v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1361

Applicant

Christopher PillonSelf-represented
1 appearance
David MolnarSelf-represented
1 appearance
Dubravko CvetkovicSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ekaterini AllagasSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gawain ColeySelf-represented
1 appearance
James CunninghamSelf-represented
1 appearance
Janet BergerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joseph BriggsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joseph ManimalethuSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mary DopelhamerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mary HardmanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael TranchemontagneSelf-represented
1 appearance
Randall HermanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Richard VellaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sandra BakshSelf-represented
1 appearance
Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance
Shirley GibsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Susan TillerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Victor PakSelf-represented
1 appearance
Virgin ElginSelf-represented
1 appearance

Counsel

Brian P. SmeenkCounsel
2 appearances
Jennifer RichardsCounsel
1 appearance
Kate HughesCounsel
1 appearance
Mark A. StoneCounsel
1 appearance
Richard EliaCounsel
1 appearance
Sally BryantCounsel
1 appearance
Sarah ShodyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Michael Markicevic

James HeeneyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for OPSEU

Eric O’BrienCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services

George ParrisCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent

Michael HorvatCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent Ontario Labour Relations Board

Leonard MarvyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

Simon BlackstoneCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

Bryan J. CrispCounsel
1 appearance
Justin HeimpelCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for York University

Brian WasyliwCounsel
1 appearance

for AMAPCEO, Affected Party

Elisa MesitiUnion representative
1 appearance

for Angela Mendoza-Baez

Angela Mendoza-BaezSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Angelo Foti

Lorenzo LisiCounsel
1 appearance

for Canada Safeway Limited

Paul YoungCounsel
1 appearance

for CAW-TCA Canada

Colette HoosonUnion representative
1 appearance

for Gary Klein

Susan ChapmanCounsel
1 appearance

for Habeeburrahiman Kavangal

Peter K. HrastovecCounsel
1 appearance

for himself

Faron HaydenSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rajanayagam BalaganthanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rohan AbbeySelf-represented
1 appearance

for Jennette Frost

Ian WerkerCounsel
1 appearance

for Manulife Financial

Veronica MohanCounsel
1 appearance

for Melvin Herzog and Denise Jepersen

Glynnis BurtCounsel
1 appearance

for Menzies Chrysler Inc., Clark Menzies and Mark Lyons

Richard J. MazarCounsel
1 appearance

for Menzies Chrysler Incorporated, Clark Menzies, Mark Lyons

Richard J. MazarCounsel
1 appearance

for Michael Watson

Raj AnandCounsel
1 appearance

for Mohammed Manjra

Beth BeattieCounsel
1 appearance

for OPSEU

Adrienne LiangCounsel
1 appearance

for Paul Cohn

Paul CohnSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Securitas Canada Ltd., Lee McGee and Milroy Mariampillai

Daniel R. McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for Stanley Klimitz

Jack CopeloviciCounsel
1 appearance

for Stan Mei

Geoffrey BakerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party

Elizabeth NurseCounsel
3 appearances
Susan LuftCounsel
2 appearances
Heather AldenCounsel
1 appearance
Jorge V. HurtadoCounsel
1 appearance
Lorenzo LisiCounsel
1 appearance
Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance
Paul BoileuaCounsel
1 appearance
Paul O’RyanCounsel
1 appearance
Rebecca LeeCounsel
1 appearance
Dave SteeleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party Unite Here Local 75

Jorge HurtadoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party University of Western Ontario Faculty Association

John W.T. JudsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Self-representedSelf-represented
7 appearances
Patrick JamesCounsel
5 appearances
Tarek IbrahimSelf-represented
4 appearances
Douglas ChristieCounsel
4 appearances
Mark ThomasSelf-represented
3 appearances
Maria RotsSelf-represented
3 appearances
Barbara KueberSelf-represented
3 appearances
Michael ChristiansonSelf-represented
3 appearances
Cecil NormanAgent
3 appearances
Shawn BinghamSelf-represented
3 appearances
Lina AhmedSelf-represented
2 appearances
Mary MackinnonCounsel
2 appearances
Ronald IhaszSelf-represented
2 appearances
Thomas PeacockAgent
2 appearances
Nana Kow KuffuorSelf-represented
2 appearances
Farah MalikCounsel
2 appearances
Galina OkounevaSelf-represented
2 appearances
Neallos WedemireSelf-represented
2 appearances
Nelson RunnallsSelf-represented
2 appearances
Karina VilnerSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicant Afat Ahmadli

Karina VilnerAgent
1 appearance

for the Applicant Karina Vilner

Karina VilnerSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Applicants

John VillellaAgent
1 appearance
Marcia CannerAgent
1 appearance
John HowarthSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place

Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Commission

Anthony GriffinCounsel
2 appearances
Bay RyleyCounsel
2 appearances
Isfahan MeraliCounsel
1 appearance
Megan Evans MaxwellCounsel
1 appearance
Melanie ShulmanCounsel
1 appearance
Prabhu RajanCounsel
1 appearance
Kikee MalikCounsel
1 appearance

for the Complainant

Mandy EasonCounsel
5 appearances
Kimberly R. MurrayCounsel
4 appearances
Raj AnandCounsel
2 appearances
Paul McKeeverCounsel
2 appearances
Amanda DriscollCounsel
1 appearance

for the Complainants

Jane LettonAgent
1 appearance
Jane LettonCounsel
1 appearance

for The Governing Council of Salvation Army in Canada

Blair McCreadieCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervener

Michael DunnCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Jeff AndrewCounsel
2 appearances
Evan SchillerCounsel
2 appearances
Shaheen HiraniCounsel
1 appearance
Catherine DavisUnion representative
1 appearance
Cathy BrakerCounsel
1 appearance
Colette HoosonUnion representative
1 appearance
David WrightCounsel
1 appearance
Deborah HowdenCounsel
1 appearance
Devon M. PaulCounsel
1 appearance
Emma PhillipsCounsel
1 appearance
Gavin LeebCounsel
1 appearance
Giuseppe AgostinoCounsel
1 appearance
Jeffery AndrewCounsel
1 appearance
Jerry RasoCounsel
1 appearance
Jessica KearsleyCounsel
1 appearance
Mark WrightCounsel
1 appearance
Melissa KronickCounsel
1 appearance
Mona StaplesUnion representative
1 appearance
Rick LerouxUnion representative
1 appearance
Robert ChampagneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor CAW Canada Local 4266

Mike ArmstrongUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Teamster Canada Rail Conference, Division 660

Denis EllicksonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Marion Crane, Helmut Zissert

Roslyn BachiooCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Brian SmithCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Labour Relations Board

Leonard MarvyAgent
1 appearance

for the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

Simon BlackstoneAgent
1 appearance

for the Personal Respondent

Craig R. ColraineCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Intervener

Michael DunnCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Intervenor

Michael DoiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent

Garth KiddCounsel
1 appearance
Adam BeattyCounsel
1 appearance
Karen InselsbacherCounsel
1 appearance
Paula M. RusakCounsel
1 appearance
Peter KrysiakCounsel
1 appearance
Tammy W. Grove-McClementCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondents

Zachary GreenCounsel
2 appearances

for the Proposed Respondent V.I.

V.I.Self-represented
1 appearance

for The Regional Municipality of Peel

John GescherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Tracy A. KayCounsel
3 appearances
Donna PolgarCounsel
3 appearances
Michelle A. AltonCounsel
3 appearances
Caroline V. JonesCounsel
3 appearances
Michelle WrightCounsel
2 appearances
Adrienne CoutoCounsel
2 appearances
Sari L. SpringerCounsel
2 appearances
Karen SargeantCounsel
2 appearances
Roger R. MillsCounsel
2 appearances
Paul MeierCounsel
2 appearances
Carol VandenHoekCounsel
2 appearances
Jennifer RichardsCounsel
2 appearances
Carolyn JohnstonCounsel
2 appearances
Karen JensenCounsel
2 appearances
Philip DayAgent
2 appearances
Andrea M. DedrickCounsel
2 appearances
Raquel ChisholmCounsel
2 appearances
James D. HigginsonCounsel
1 appearance
James G. KnightCounsel
1 appearance
Allen V. CraigCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent 1243564 Ontario Limited o/a Total Scrap Management

Kathleen E. AndrewCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Inc.

Kathryn J. BirdCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113

Carlo Di GiovanniCounsel
1 appearance
Katherine RowanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent and Proposed Respondent

Kyle D. BurgisCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Angela Tesseris

Angela TesserisSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Bombardier Transportation Canada Inc.

Sarah CrossleyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Brinks Canada Ltd

George VassosCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Christopher Fitkin

Melany FranklinCounsel
3 appearances

for the Respondent C[...] Inc.

F.H.Agent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd.

Christopher A. SinalCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent CN National Railway Company

Jacynthe GirardCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Crossby Dewar Inc.

Carissa TanzolaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Domclean Limited

Robert J. AtkinsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Eve Tsai

Denyse BouletCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Gilmore Investments Corporation – Gilmore Global

Colleen DunlopCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Great West Life-Scarborough Disability Office

Susan McCorquodaleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hamilton Wentworth District School Board

Mark ZegaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Henniges Automotive

Christopher FioreCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Henry Rivas

Christa L. ReaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hilton Toronto Hotel

Michelle A. AltonCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent H.S.

H.S.Self-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Jason Bacchiochi

Ann MitchellCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Jeffry McMaster

Elizabeth K.P. GraceCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Joe Boute and Intervenor United Steelworkers Local 455

Robert HealyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Kenneth Swan

David C. MooreCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Kiran Panikar

Kiran PanikarSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Cathy PhanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Mitsume Fukui

Michael KlugCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Naeem Muhammed

Jenny StephensonCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Nancy Dell’Osso

Nancy Dell’OssoSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Norman J. Groot

Allison TaylorCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Ed HolmesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

Joshua S. PhillipsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Lucy SiracoCounsel
3 appearances
Glenn ChuCounsel
3 appearances
Deborah HowdenCounsel
2 appearances
Andrea GonsalvesCounsel
2 appearances
Kevin MacNeillCounsel
2 appearances
Daryn M. JefferiesCounsel
2 appearances
Michele WrightCounsel
2 appearances
Kristin TaylorCounsel
2 appearances
Daryn M. JeffriesCounsel
2 appearances
Lisa Washington-WattsCounsel
2 appearances
Jennifer RichardsCounsel
2 appearances
Zoya TrofimenkoCounsel
2 appearances
Daniel R. McDonaldCounsel
2 appearances
Jordana K. JosephCounsel
1 appearance
Joseph TasconaCounsel
1 appearance
Karen JensenCounsel
1 appearance
Katherine FordCounsel
1 appearance
Katherine PollockCounsel
1 appearance
Kelsey OrthCounsel
1 appearance
Kevin InwoodCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario Division and CUPE 4153

Elizabeth NurseCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario and Elizabetta De Santis

Mandy WojcikCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Jodie Huber and Rick Pereira

Karimjee GreeneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Margaret Laurence Housing Co-operative, Julie Murphy, Debbie August-Moffatt, Stephen English, Raymond Ouellet, March Smith, Napolean Muisa, Dumo Siziba and Lisa Forestell

Luke J. SaitesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Pam Hooke, Mickey Frost and Dara Marcoccia

Erin R. KuzzCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The University of Western Ontario, Donne Penne and Lisa Ann Korab

Barry J. BrownCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Sudbury Regional Hospital

Diane BarbeauAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent, The Corporation of the County of Grey

Andrea M. DedrickCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Ottawa Hospital

Andre ChampagneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto District School Board

Grant BowersCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board

Glenn ChuCounsel
2 appearances
Antonella CeddiaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Transit Commission

Marni TolenskyCounsel
1 appearance
Patricia MatusiakCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University of Ottawa

Karen JensenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Gurjit BrarCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Police Services Board, Officer Ruttner and Officer Taylor

Michele WrightCounsel
1 appearance

for the Union

Ryan GoldvineUnion representative
1 appearance

for the United Steelworkers, Local 9042

Cathy BrakerCounsel
1 appearance

for Tom Graham

Paul D. MackCounsel
2 appearances

for United Food & Commercial Workers Canada, Locals 175 & 633

Erin WallaceCounsel
1 appearance

for United Steel Workers, Local 5296, and Joe Bonsu

Shaheen HiraniCounsel
1 appearance

for William Blair

Sie-Wing KhowCounsel
1 appearance

for William Blair, Chief of Police

Sie-Wing KhowCounsel
1 appearance

for Windsor Casino Limited and Joe Moore

Nancy Jummu-TaylorCounsel
1 appearance

Intervenor

Ryan GoldvineCounsel
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Gina CiampaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Cheryl McDonaldSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gayathri SeetharamSelf-represented
1 appearance
Anica VisicSelf-represented
1 appearance

On Her Own Behalf

Florips BajoucoSelf-represented
3 appearances
Caroline WedleySelf-represented
1 appearance
Melissa MarshallSelf-represented
1 appearance

On his own behalf

William ThomsonSelf-represented
1 appearance

On His Own Behalf

Gerrald StangretSelf-represented
1 appearance

Respondent

Brian GatienCounsel
1 appearance
Karen SargeantCounsel
1 appearance
Kevin D. SherkinCounsel
1 appearance
Ted KovacsCounsel
1 appearance
William DeplaedtSelf-represented
1 appearance

Respondents

John MoszynskiCounsel
1 appearance
Robert BaldwinCounsel
1 appearance
Zoya TrofimenkoCounsel
1 appearance

Self-represented

Juno StewartSelf-represented
1 appearance

867

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

11.7

cases/mo

HRTO867(100%)

Decision types

motion

852

trial

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Landlord and Tenant

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Workers' Compensation

Corporate/Commercial Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Ena Chadha

Vice-Chair·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario·Since 2008

867

cases · 7 yrs · HRTO

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 700Vice-chair· 103Adjudicator· 35Vice-Chair· 16Adjudicator· 7Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario· 2Vice-Chair· 2Vice Chair· 1

Kyle D. Cleaver

In Private Practice1 case2013–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 2, 2013

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to concurrent civil proceeding seeking Code remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action explicitly raised Code-related interests and sought remedial redress for the alleged human rights concerns.

As the Tribunal has no discretion when an application falls within section 34(11), the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Tewari v. V.G. Packers Limited o/a VG Meats, 2013 HRTO 1642

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 30, 2013

Union granted intervenor status in member's employment discrimination application.

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

The applicant's union filed a request to intervene, citing concerns that the allegations might impact its members and the collective agreement.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

Kashmir Singh v. Olymel, 2013 HRTO 1641

Robert Leck

2 cases2013–2022

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 26, 2013

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel Ontario Labour Relations Board appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, and disability, culminating in his termination.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings were virtually identical and raised overlapping factual and remedial issues.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the OLRB matter.

Clive Perreira v. Vins Plastics Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1620

Ena Chadha

Respondent given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application or face default proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

Yvonne Gaudet v. Brampton Bingo Country, 2013 HRTO 1602

Ena Chadha

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

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

Neither the applicant nor her counsel responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Fokes v. GMRI Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1601

James Lenoury

8 cases1989–2026

Grace Vaccarelli

33 cases2009–2018

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 19, 2013

Respondents' preliminary request for particulars and early document production denied as premature.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation.

Prior to filing their Response, the respondents requested an order for particulars and the early production of a tape recording referenced in the application.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to comprehend the allegations and file a response.

Nicole Allinson v. Delta Investigative Services and Joe Cabral, 2013 HRTO 1579

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 19, 2013

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application but later requested the Tribunal not to proceed because a civil action had been commenced.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

Silva v. Queensway Volkswagen Inc., 2013 HRTO 1571

Thomas Gorksy

1 case2013–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 17, 2013

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

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

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents based on the same facts, seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the application should be deferred because the respondents were moving to strike the civil claim.

Trudel v. Marwood Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1564

John Gescher

Not Practising Law2 cases2011–2013

Blair McCreadie

17 cases2000–2015

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel civil action to avoid duplication.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, claiming he was denied services at an emergency shelter in retaliation for an ongoing civil action against the respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the civil action sought overlapping remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action was active and the applicant intended to amend it to include the events alleged in the application, creating a risk of duplication.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action.

Ferron v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2013 HRTO 1544

Stephen C. Bernardo

3 cases2012–2013

Ena Chadha

In Private Practice16 cases2007–2021

Request for particulars prior to filing response denied as application contained sufficient detail.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Prior to filing its Response, the respondent requested an extension of time and an order for particulars, arguing the application lacked sufficient detail.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the application contained adequate information regarding the alleged facts and legal issues for the respondent to file a response.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response within 21 days.

Kovacs v. DBG Canada Limited, 2013 HRTO 1536

Raquel Chisholm

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 11, 2013

Tribunal declined to consider interim requests while application remained deferred pending grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add reprisal allegations and compel the respondent to continue an external investigator's retainer.

The application had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance procedures.

Hongru Cao v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2013 HRTO 1523

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 30, 2013

Request for reconsideration of interim decision dismissed as Tribunal rules only permit reconsideration of final decisions.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request for an interim remedy to expedite her human rights application prior to an eviction proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure only permits reconsideration of final decisions, not interim ones.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it lacks the authority to review or stay the eviction order issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

Scott v. Otter Creek Co-operative Homes Inc., 2013 HRTO 1484

Zoya Trofimenko

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2007–2016

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2013

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability, specifically regarding discipline and dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings.

Rossi v. City of Toronto Court Services Division-York Civic Center, 2013 HRTO 1467

Michelle Wright

2 cases2008–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 16, 2013

Application reactivated and partially amended to include further details of police treatment and increased damages.

The applicant sought to reactivate and amend his human rights application against the Toronto Police Service following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

Sedat Yaylacam v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 1413

Pamela Leiper

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2003–2016

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 15, 2013

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance mediation/arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the mediation/arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues.

Moallim v. CSH Westmount LTC Inc., 2013 HRTO 1404

Richard Miller

Practising Law - Employed43 cases2005–2025

Naomi Calla

32 cases2009–2017

Michele Wright

30 cases2008–2021

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 14, 2013

Request to add Board of Governors of Exhibition Place as a respondent granted on consent.

The proposed respondent consented to being added, confirming it is responsible for security services at the relevant location and employs the security guards involved in the incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, added the respondent, and set a timeline for pleadings.

Adore v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1401

Ena Chadha

Human rights application reactivated following conclusion of ESA claim; amendment and production requests dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to reactivate her deferred human rights application, amend the application, and obtain a production order for certain documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the related Employment Standards Act claim had concluded.

The Tribunal declined to address the amendment request due to a lack of particulars and dismissed the production request as premature under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Sarbijit Kaur v. Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc., 2013 HRTO 1369

Michelle A. Alton

9 cases2012–2022

Ena Chadha

Human rights application reactivated after applicant withdrew related grievance.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related Ontario Labour Relations Board process.

The applicant withdrew his grievance, concluding the related procedures.

The respondent employer took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the parties to indicate whether they were amenable to mediation.

Andrew Jayashankar v. Hilton Toronto Hotel and Kiran Panikar, 2013 HRTO 1366

Steven Wilson

10 cases1997–2015

Joseph Tascona

9 cases1990–2016

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding her return to work and a failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union and the employer were proceeding to arbitration on a grievance raising the same facts and issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondents and the union supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedures to avoid concurrent proceedings.

Tammy May v. Mill Creek Care Centre and Maureen Pauls, 2013 HRTO 1362

Robert Baldwin

11 cases2008–2023

Ena Chadha