Ena Chadha

Early dismissal denied as co-worker's grievance settlement did not address the applicant's human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment by a co-worker.

The respondent co-worker requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved through a union grievance settlement that rescinded her suspension.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the grievance process focused on the respondent's employment rights and did not address the applicant's human rights allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed the employer to provide submissions on the applicant's request to add it as a respondent.

Abdulle v. Victor, 2010 HRTO 1767

Ena Chadha

Respondent ordered to immediately produce arguably relevant documents after failing to comply with disclosure rules.

The applicant filed a Request for Order requiring the respondent to produce its list and copies of arguably relevant documents, specifically notes and records regarding strength and agility testing, to prepare an expert report.

The respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the respondent to immediately comply with its disclosure obligations.

Gary Tearne v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor and Proactive Ergonomic Concepts Inc. o/a Pinnacle Ergonomics, 2010 HRTO 1763

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 25, 2010

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

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions, but the applicant indicated he was taking his complaint elsewhere and refused to participate.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications regarding scheduling and his intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Enrique Jimenez v. Radmila Pejovic, 2010 HRTO 1756

Human rights application dismissed under section 34(11) due to concurrent civil claim on same facts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on family status and association with a person identified by a Code-related ground, arising from an October 2, 2009 meeting with the individual respondent.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim and the human rights application were based on the same factual context and sought similar remedies.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Ciampa v. York University, 2010 HRTO 1747

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance on the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, disability, and age, claiming she was forced to retire and denied accommodation.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because there was an ongoing union grievance regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as the grievance process was still in progress and the applicant did not identify any factors to depart from the normal approach.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

Florence Barry v. St. Michael’s Hospital and Tasha Osborne, 2010 HRTO 1745

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to meet the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), more than one year after her employment was terminated.

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

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to pregnancy complications and fear of losing severance benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant had sought legal advice and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not filing within the one-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Sudac v. Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1744

Ena Chadha

Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior ESA decision did not address Code issues.

The respondent employer requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging family status discrimination, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer had already dismissed the applicant's claim for termination and severance pay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Employment Standards decision focused on constructive dismissal and did not appropriately deal with the human rights issues of discrimination, harassment, and the duty to accommodate under the Code.

Saroyan v. Deco Automotive, 2010 HRTO 1739

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 20, 2010

Tribunal ordered respondents to file a response within 14 days or face default proceedings.

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

The respondents failed to file a proper Form 2 Response despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Form 2 Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

Kohli v. Awan, 2010 HRTO 1720

Ena Chadha

Tribunal directs parties to provide submissions on method of proceeding for preliminary hearing on abuse of process.

The respondents filed a Request to Dismiss the applicant's human rights application, arguing it raised the same issues as a previously dismissed application regarding the apprehension of the applicant's children.

The Tribunal noted that the doctrine of abuse of process may apply to prevent relitigation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether he wished the hearing into the preliminary issue of abuse of process to proceed by teleconference or in writing.

S.D. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1718

Ena Chadha

Human rights application amended to name the applicant directly and dismissed as withdrawn.

The applicant filed a request to amend the application to remove his representative and proceed in his own name, along with a request to withdraw the application.

The respondent Providence consented, and the Ministry did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the style of cause and dismissed the application as withdrawn.

Baqi v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1710

Ena Chadha

Deferral of human rights application denied as no other legal proceeding was pending.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

Both parties confirmed there were no outstanding WSIB appeals and opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found deferral inappropriate as there was no other legal proceeding pending and directed the matter to mediation.

Ana Olliver v. Taylor Electronic Services Inc., Dave Taylor and Liz Taylor, 2010 HRTO 1708

Ena Chadha

Application dismissed for lack of standing; individual cannot file public interest application without personal infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an electrical cabinet on a public walkway constituted a barrier for individuals with vision disabilities.

The applicant acknowledged he did not have a vision disability and brought the application in the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant lacked standing because his own rights were not infringed and only the Ontario Human Rights Commission is statutorily empowered to initiate applications in the public interest.

Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Municipality), 2010 HRTO 1704

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period without good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, with the last incident occurring in March 2009 when his employment ended.

The application was filed in April 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and provided the applicant an opportunity to explain the delay.

The applicant failed to provide submissions demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Liddell v. Pitney Bowes Canada, 2010 HRTO 1703

Ena Chadha

Union granted intervener status; parties directed to provide submissions on whether employer is federally regulated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) against her employer, Brinks Canada Limited, and her benefits provider, Great West Life.

The applicant's union, CAW Canada Local 4266, requested and was granted intervener status.

Brinks requested that the application be dismissed against it on the basis that it is a federally regulated employer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

Katherine Craig v. Brinks Canada Limited and Great West Life-Scarborough Disability Office, 2010 HRTO 1685

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 5, 2010

Human rights application held in abeyance pending conclusion of related Transition Application.

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

The Tribunal noted that a related matter was proceeding before the Tribunal by way of a Transition Application.

The Tribunal invited submissions on whether the current application should be held in abeyance.

The respondents requested abeyance due to overlapping facts and issues, and the applicant did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the application held in abeyance until the conclusion of the Transition proceeding.

Deopaul Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1646

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to jurisdictional notice.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against Rogers Cable Communications Inc. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business, and invited submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the notice and subsequent correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Zeljko Seifert v. Rogers Cable Communications Inc. H. Speed Internet, 2010 HRTO 1636

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievances; individual respondents removed.

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

The organizational respondent requested the removal of two individual respondents and the deferral of the application pending the completion of two outstanding union grievances based on the same facts.

The applicant's union also requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue against them as the organizational respondent assumed responsibility.

The Tribunal also deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and granted the union's request to intervene.

Richards v. Bridgepoint Health, 2010 HRTO 1634

Ena Chadha

Tribunal refuses to defer human rights application pending stalled Employment Insurance appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability after being terminated for refusing to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's Employment Insurance appeal before the Office of the Umpire.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the Umpire appeal had not advanced, no hearing was scheduled, and it was unclear whether the Umpire would address the human rights allegations.

The matter was directed to mediation.

Glaus Napash v. URS Canadian Operations Ltd., 2010 HRTO 1622

Ena Chadha

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of creed, marital status, and disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues, which was proceeding to arbitration.

Finding that deferral is the most fair, just, and expeditious way of proceeding when there is an ongoing grievance, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

Derek Kerr v. Chris Vaughan, 2010 HRTO 1619

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 28, 2010

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about fair consideration as a probationary employee and potential delay.

The respondents supported deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, noting the overlap in subject matter and remedies sought.

Fenwick v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 1618

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

Employment and Labour Law

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

Ena Chadha

Early dismissal denied as co-worker's grievance settlement did not address the applicant's human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment by a co-worker.

The respondent co-worker requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved through a union grievance settlement that rescinded her suspension.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the grievance process focused on the respondent's employment rights and did not address the applicant's human rights allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed the employer to provide submissions on the applicant's request to add it as a respondent.

Abdulle v. Victor, 2010 HRTO 1767

Ena Chadha

Respondent ordered to immediately produce arguably relevant documents after failing to comply with disclosure rules.

The respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the respondent to immediately comply with its disclosure obligations.

Gary Tearne v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor and Proactive Ergonomic Concepts Inc. o/a Pinnacle Ergonomics, 2010 HRTO 1763

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 25, 2010

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

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions, but the applicant indicated he was taking his complaint elsewhere and refused to participate.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications regarding scheduling and his intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Enrique Jimenez v. Radmila Pejovic, 2010 HRTO 1756

James Heeney

10 cases2009–2022

Brian Wasyliw

In Private Practice31 cases2005–2022

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed under section 34(11) due to concurrent civil claim on same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim and the human rights application were based on the same factual context and sought similar remedies.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

Ciampa v. York University, 2010 HRTO 1747

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance on the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, disability, and age, claiming she was forced to retire and denied accommodation.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because there was an ongoing union grievance regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as the grievance process was still in progress and the applicant did not identify any factors to depart from the normal approach.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

Florence Barry v. St. Michael’s Hospital and Tasha Osborne, 2010 HRTO 1745

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to meet the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), more than one year after her employment was terminated.

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

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to pregnancy complications and fear of losing severance benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant had sought legal advice and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not filing within the one-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Sudac v. Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1744

Ena Chadha

Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior ESA decision did not address Code issues.

Saroyan v. Deco Automotive, 2010 HRTO 1739

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 20, 2010

Tribunal ordered respondents to file a response within 14 days or face default proceedings.

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

The respondents failed to file a proper Form 2 Response despite being granted an extension of time.

Kohli v. Awan, 2010 HRTO 1720

Ena Chadha

Tribunal directs parties to provide submissions on method of proceeding for preliminary hearing on abuse of process.

The Tribunal noted that the doctrine of abuse of process may apply to prevent relitigation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether he wished the hearing into the preliminary issue of abuse of process to proceed by teleconference or in writing.

S.D. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1718

Ena Chadha

Human rights application amended to name the applicant directly and dismissed as withdrawn.

The applicant filed a request to amend the application to remove his representative and proceed in his own name, along with a request to withdraw the application.

The respondent Providence consented, and the Ministry did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the style of cause and dismissed the application as withdrawn.

Baqi v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1710

Ena Chadha

Deferral of human rights application denied as no other legal proceeding was pending.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

Both parties confirmed there were no outstanding WSIB appeals and opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found deferral inappropriate as there was no other legal proceeding pending and directed the matter to mediation.

Ana Olliver v. Taylor Electronic Services Inc., Dave Taylor and Liz Taylor, 2010 HRTO 1708

Ena Chadha

Application dismissed for lack of standing; individual cannot file public interest application without personal infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an electrical cabinet on a public walkway constituted a barrier for individuals with vision disabilities.

The applicant acknowledged he did not have a vision disability and brought the application in the public interest.

Freitag v. Penetanguishene (Municipality), 2010 HRTO 1704

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period without good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, with the last incident occurring in March 2009 when his employment ended.

The application was filed in April 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and provided the applicant an opportunity to explain the delay.

The applicant failed to provide submissions demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Liddell v. Pitney Bowes Canada, 2010 HRTO 1703

Ena Chadha

Union granted intervener status; parties directed to provide submissions on whether employer is federally regulated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) against her employer, Brinks Canada Limited, and her benefits provider, Great West Life.

The applicant's union, CAW Canada Local 4266, requested and was granted intervener status.

Brinks requested that the application be dismissed against it on the basis that it is a federally regulated employer.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

Katherine Craig v. Brinks Canada Limited and Great West Life-Scarborough Disability Office, 2010 HRTO 1685

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 5, 2010

Human rights application held in abeyance pending conclusion of related Transition Application.

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

The Tribunal noted that a related matter was proceeding before the Tribunal by way of a Transition Application.

The Tribunal invited submissions on whether the current application should be held in abeyance.

The respondents requested abeyance due to overlapping facts and issues, and the applicant did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the application held in abeyance until the conclusion of the Transition proceeding.

Deopaul Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1646

Ena Chadha

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to jurisdictional notice.

The applicant failed to respond to the notice and subsequent correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Zeljko Seifert v. Rogers Cable Communications Inc. H. Speed Internet, 2010 HRTO 1636

Ena Chadha

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievances; individual respondents removed.

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

The applicant's union also requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue against them as the organizational respondent assumed responsibility.

The Tribunal also deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and granted the union's request to intervene.

Richards v. Bridgepoint Health, 2010 HRTO 1634

Ena Chadha

Tribunal refuses to defer human rights application pending stalled Employment Insurance appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability after being terminated for refusing to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's Employment Insurance appeal before the Office of the Umpire.

The matter was directed to mediation.

Glaus Napash v. URS Canadian Operations Ltd., 2010 HRTO 1622

Ena Chadha

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of creed, marital status, and disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues, which was proceeding to arbitration.

Derek Kerr v. Chris Vaughan, 2010 HRTO 1619

Ena Chadha