Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 6, 2013

Deferred human rights application reactivated following the conclusion of related WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after sustaining workplace injuries and filing WSIB claims.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

Following the completion of the WSIAT proceeding, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to reactivate the application as the WSIAT proceeding had concluded.

Flynn v. DGN Marketing Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1354

Mathew R. Vella

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 2, 2013

Requests for interim remedy and expedited process denied as concerns of imminent trampoline removal were speculative.

The applicant filed human rights applications on behalf of her three children, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

The applicant requested an interim remedy and an expedited process to prevent the respondents from removing a trampoline used by the children for therapeutic purposes.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the respondents had not formally demanded the removal of the trampoline and were still conducting a compliance survey.

The Tribunal concluded that the concerns of imminent removal were speculative and the circumstances did not warrant an expedited proceeding.

N.G.M. v. Newton-Trelawney Property Management Company, 2013 HRTO 1350

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 1, 2013

Application for contravention of settlement dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no settlement existed.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached a settlement from a previous application.

The respondent indicated that no settlement was ever entered into and the previous application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a copy of any minutes of settlement and the previous application had indeed been dismissed.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no settlement existed.

Gibson v. Deplaedt, 2013 HRTO 1339

Deborah Howden

In Private Practice6 cases2013–2024

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 30, 2013

Intervenor status granted to adjacent condominium corporation sharing the disputed accessible parking area.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to accommodate her need for accessible parking.

The disputed parking area is shared with an adjacent condominium corporation.

The adjacent condominium corporation requested intervenor status, which was uncontested.

The Tribunal granted the request for intervenor status and permitted the respondents to amend their Response to address the applicant's amended remedial claims.

Selinger v. Icon Property Management Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1325

Human rights applications deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, filed human rights applications against the university and hospital alleging discrimination after he was suspended from his neurosurgery residency program.

The respondents sought to dismiss the applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing the matters were resolved through settlement agreements reached during a related grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreements contained ongoing contingencies and the arbitrator remained seized of the matters.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the human rights applications pending the final conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

Agila v. University of Ottawa, 2013 HRTO 1317

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 24, 2013

Request to reactivate human rights application granted following conclusion of related Employment Standards Act claim.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of her Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that the ESA process was completed and a decision had been rendered.

The respondent was directed to file a Response within 35 days.

Nicole Irwin v. HMV Canada, 2013 HRTO 1288

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 19, 2013

Human rights application dismissed; landlord exempt under shared accommodation provision and eviction justified by threats.

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in housing on the basis of race, colour, and disability after being evicted from a shared townhouse.

The respondent landlord claimed the shared accommodation exemption under section 21(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent resided in the home and shared facilities with the tenants, thus exempting him from the Code's anti-discrimination provisions.

The Tribunal further held that complaints about uncleanliness did not amount to Code-based harassment, and the eviction was not a reprisal but rather a response to the applicant's threats of violence against co-tenants.

The application was dismissed.

Kuffuor v. Kam, 2013 HRTO 1264

Jenny Stephenson

Licence Surrendered - Retired4 cases2002–2013

Christopher A. Sinal

In Private Practice2 cases2013–2013

Ena Chadha

Practising Law - Employed37 cases1994–2024

Request to reactivate human rights application denied pending completion of parallel College disciplinary appeal.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application alleging sexual solicitation in employment, which had been deferred pending a disciplinary process by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Although the College had issued a findings decision, the respondent appealed that decision to the Divisional Court, staying the penalty phase.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that deferral remained appropriate to avoid duplicitous proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact while the appeal and any related College proceedings were completed.

Mandich v. Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1216

Elizabeth Nurse

Ena Chadha

Human rights application reactivated after union grievance withdrawn.

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

Following confirmation that the union grievance was withdrawn, the applicant indicated a wish to proceed with the application.

As no party objected, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondents to file their responses.

Vasileski v. Hamilton (City), 2013 HRTO 1215

Ena Chadha

Application against two individual respondents dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to file required submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and five individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file submissions regarding jurisdiction and contact information for two individual respondents, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to file the submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the two individual respondents for abandonment and removed them as parties.

Kalloosingh v. Extreme Fitness Inc., 2013 HRTO 1188

Ena Chadha

Request to reactivate deferred application denied as grievance process had not concluded.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The applicant sought reactivation because he was discouraged by the progress of the grievance procedures.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance process had not yet concluded and the basis for reactivation set out in the deferral decision had not been met.

Emy Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc., 2013 HRTO 1186

Ena Chadha

Tribunal declines to dismiss human rights application for delay at preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sex, and association, including the use of racial slurs.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions explaining the delay and clarifying the timeline, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and delivered to the respondents.

Stephen Schaffer v. Conquest Vehicles, 2013 HRTO 1173

Jeffrey Mitchell

6 cases2000–2022

Ena Chadha

Tribunal orders respondents to produce disclosure and directs applicant's representative to confirm Law Society status.

In an interim decision regarding consolidated human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed procedural issues concerning documentary disclosure and representation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with their disclosure obligations within 14 days, noting that a change in counsel's firm did not excuse the delay.

Additionally, the Tribunal directed one of the applicants to confirm whether she was being represented by the other applicant, and if so, required the representative to provide her Law Society license number or identify the applicable exemption.

Vilner v. Zale Canada Co., 2013 HRTO 1170

Ted Kovacs

29 cases1996–2016

Ena Chadha

Request to amend human rights application to add disability ground granted; applicant ordered to provide disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and later brought a Request for Order to amend the application to add the ground of disability, specifically an anxiety disorder.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was too late and failed to establish a prima facie case, and noted the applicant had not complied with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent as the hearing was months away and the original application contained factual allegations related to mental stress.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to promptly comply with her disclosure obligations.

Tiller v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1154

Marvin Gorodensky

6 cases2009–2015

Ena Chadha

Human rights application not barred by concurrent wrongful dismissal action that does not seek Code remedies.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Upon reviewing the Statement of Claim, the Tribunal found that the civil action did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies under the Code.

Therefore, the Application was not barred by section 34(11) of the Code, and the Tribunal directed that the Application continue to be processed.

Celito Bukasa v. Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., 2013 HRTO 1151

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 19, 2013

Tribunal declined to dismiss application at preliminary stage as jurisdiction over respondent was arguable.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against TD Waterhouse.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent may be a federally regulated business.

The applicant provided a letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission suggesting TD Waterhouse is provincially regulated for its day-to-day security operations.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and ordered the Application to be processed.

Moshe Fishkin on behalf of David Fishkin v. TD Waterhouse, 2013 HRTO 1097

Steven Lavender

Ena Chadha

In Private Practice99 cases2009–2026

Human rights application deferred pending concurrent grievance arbitration; individual managers removed as respondents.

The applicant, a transit employee, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin following an incident with a bus driver that led to his termination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of two individual managers as respondents, and the deferral of the application pending an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing but granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the organizational respondent could respond to and remedy any violations.

The Tribunal also deferred the application pending the conclusion of the concurrent grievance arbitration process.

Parkinson v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1071

Andrea Gonsalves

Ena Chadha

Suspended Administratively33 cases2012–2022

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of ongoing Law Society discipline proceedings.

The applicant, a lawyer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and its discipline counsel.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because there was an ongoing Law Society discipline proceeding involving overlapping facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the advanced stage of the discipline hearing and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the Law Society proceedings.

Peters v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 HRTO 1070

Naomi Calla

32 cases2009–2017

Melany Franklin

12 cases1991–2013

Angela Chaisson

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 14, 2013

Human rights application reactivated on consent following withdrawal of criminal charges against personal respondent.

The respondents requested to reactivate the human rights application after criminal charges against the personal respondent were withdrawn.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

Duke v. Toronto (City), 2013 HRTO 1066

Richard Millar

Not Practising Law - Employed33 cases2005–2014

Michelle Dobranowski

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 11, 2013

Tribunal orders transit commission to disclose bus driver's name for potential addition as personal respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking disclosure of the bus driver's full name in order to add him as a personal respondent.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the driver's identity was arguably relevant to the allegations and necessary for the applicant's intention to add him as a party.

Dore v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1040

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

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 6, 2013

Deferred human rights application reactivated following the conclusion of related WSIAT proceedings.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

Following the completion of the WSIAT proceeding, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to reactivate the application as the WSIAT proceeding had concluded.

Flynn v. DGN Marketing Services Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1354

Mathew R. Vella

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 2, 2013

Requests for interim remedy and expedited process denied as concerns of imminent trampoline removal were speculative.

The applicant filed human rights applications on behalf of her three children, alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

The applicant requested an interim remedy and an expedited process to prevent the respondents from removing a trampoline used by the children for therapeutic purposes.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the respondents had not formally demanded the removal of the trampoline and were still conducting a compliance survey.

The Tribunal concluded that the concerns of imminent removal were speculative and the circumstances did not warrant an expedited proceeding.

N.G.M. v. Newton-Trelawney Property Management Company, 2013 HRTO 1350

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 1, 2013

Application for contravention of settlement dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no settlement existed.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached a settlement from a previous application.

The respondent indicated that no settlement was ever entered into and the previous application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a copy of any minutes of settlement and the previous application had indeed been dismissed.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no settlement existed.

Gibson v. Deplaedt, 2013 HRTO 1339

Deborah Howden

In Private Practice6 cases2013–2024

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 30, 2013

Intervenor status granted to adjacent condominium corporation sharing the disputed accessible parking area.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to accommodate her need for accessible parking.

The disputed parking area is shared with an adjacent condominium corporation.

The adjacent condominium corporation requested intervenor status, which was uncontested.

The Tribunal granted the request for intervenor status and permitted the respondents to amend their Response to address the applicant's amended remedial claims.

Selinger v. Icon Property Management Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1325

Paul Champ

11 cases2010–2026

Karen Jensen

14 cases2011–2017

Denyse Boulet

13 cases2012–2026

Andre Champagne

In Private Practice4 cases1995–2013

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 29, 2013

Human rights applications deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration process.

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreements contained ongoing contingencies and the arbitrator remained seized of the matters.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the human rights applications pending the final conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

Agila v. University of Ottawa, 2013 HRTO 1317

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 24, 2013

Request to reactivate human rights application granted following conclusion of related Employment Standards Act claim.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of her Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that the ESA process was completed and a decision had been rendered.

The respondent was directed to file a Response within 35 days.

Nicole Irwin v. HMV Canada, 2013 HRTO 1288

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 19, 2013

Human rights application dismissed; landlord exempt under shared accommodation provision and eviction justified by threats.

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in housing on the basis of race, colour, and disability after being evicted from a shared townhouse.

The respondent landlord claimed the shared accommodation exemption under section 21(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the respondent resided in the home and shared facilities with the tenants, thus exempting him from the Code's anti-discrimination provisions.

The application was dismissed.

Kuffuor v. Kam, 2013 HRTO 1264

Jenny Stephenson

Licence Surrendered - Retired4 cases2002–2013

Christopher A. Sinal

In Private Practice2 cases2013–2013

Ena Chadha

Practising Law - Employed37 cases1994–2024

Request to reactivate human rights application denied pending completion of parallel College disciplinary appeal.

Although the College had issued a findings decision, the respondent appealed that decision to the Divisional Court, staying the penalty phase.

Mandich v. Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1216

Elizabeth Nurse

Ena Chadha

Human rights application reactivated after union grievance withdrawn.

The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

Following confirmation that the union grievance was withdrawn, the applicant indicated a wish to proceed with the application.

As no party objected, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondents to file their responses.

Vasileski v. Hamilton (City), 2013 HRTO 1215

Ena Chadha

Application against two individual respondents dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to file required submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and five individual respondents.

The applicant failed to file the submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the two individual respondents for abandonment and removed them as parties.

Kalloosingh v. Extreme Fitness Inc., 2013 HRTO 1188

Ena Chadha

Request to reactivate deferred application denied as grievance process had not concluded.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The applicant sought reactivation because he was discouraged by the progress of the grievance procedures.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance process had not yet concluded and the basis for reactivation set out in the deferral decision had not been met.

Emy Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc., 2013 HRTO 1186

Ena Chadha

Tribunal declines to dismiss human rights application for delay at preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sex, and association, including the use of racial slurs.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions explaining the delay and clarifying the timeline, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and delivered to the respondents.

Stephen Schaffer v. Conquest Vehicles, 2013 HRTO 1173

Jeffrey Mitchell

6 cases2000–2022

Ena Chadha

Tribunal orders respondents to produce disclosure and directs applicant's representative to confirm Law Society status.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with their disclosure obligations within 14 days, noting that a change in counsel's firm did not excuse the delay.

Vilner v. Zale Canada Co., 2013 HRTO 1170

Ted Kovacs

29 cases1996–2016

Ena Chadha

Request to amend human rights application to add disability ground granted; applicant ordered to provide disclosure.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was too late and failed to establish a prima facie case, and noted the applicant had not complied with disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to promptly comply with her disclosure obligations.

Tiller v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1154

Marvin Gorodensky

6 cases2009–2015

Ena Chadha

Human rights application not barred by concurrent wrongful dismissal action that does not seek Code remedies.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

Upon reviewing the Statement of Claim, the Tribunal found that the civil action did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies under the Code.

Therefore, the Application was not barred by section 34(11) of the Code, and the Tribunal directed that the Application continue to be processed.

Celito Bukasa v. Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., 2013 HRTO 1151

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 19, 2013

Tribunal declined to dismiss application at preliminary stage as jurisdiction over respondent was arguable.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against TD Waterhouse.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent may be a federally regulated business.

The applicant provided a letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission suggesting TD Waterhouse is provincially regulated for its day-to-day security operations.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and ordered the Application to be processed.

Moshe Fishkin on behalf of David Fishkin v. TD Waterhouse, 2013 HRTO 1097

Steven Lavender

Ena Chadha

In Private Practice99 cases2009–2026

Human rights application deferred pending concurrent grievance arbitration; individual managers removed as respondents.

The applicant, a transit employee, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin following an incident with a bus driver that led to his termination.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of two individual managers as respondents, and the deferral of the application pending an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing but granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the organizational respondent could respond to and remedy any violations.

The Tribunal also deferred the application pending the conclusion of the concurrent grievance arbitration process.

Parkinson v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1071

Andrea Gonsalves

Ena Chadha

Suspended Administratively33 cases2012–2022

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of ongoing Law Society discipline proceedings.

The applicant, a lawyer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and its discipline counsel.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because there was an ongoing Law Society discipline proceeding involving overlapping facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the advanced stage of the discipline hearing and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the Law Society proceedings.

Peters v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2013 HRTO 1070

Naomi Calla

32 cases2009–2017

Melany Franklin

12 cases1991–2013

Angela Chaisson

Ena Chadha

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 14, 2013

Human rights application reactivated on consent following withdrawal of criminal charges against personal respondent.

The respondents requested to reactivate the human rights application after criminal charges against the personal respondent were withdrawn.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

Duke v. Toronto (City), 2013 HRTO 1066

Richard Millar

Not Practising Law - Employed33 cases2005–2014

Michelle Dobranowski

Ena Chadha