Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 24, 2015

Request for interim remedy to reinstate applicant pending human rights application denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and sought an interim remedy to be reinstated to his position pending the final determination of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as any financial losses could be compensated if a Code violation was ultimately found.

Torr v. Toronto Paramedic Services, 2015 HRTO 987

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the extended deadline.

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

Williamson v. Walmart Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 965

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the revised deadline.

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

Andrew White v. Toronto Community Housing, 2015 HRTO 959

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

Leeanne Butler v. F&P Manufacturing Inc., 2015 HRTO 958

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 17, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to dismissal request.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss the application, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the extended deadline.

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

Miles v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 89, 2015 HRTO 949

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 14, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to file submissions on jurisdiction.

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

The respondents sought dismissal on the basis that the corporate respondent is federally regulated.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Peters v. United Parcel Services Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 926

Application dismissed as applicant failed to provide a good reason for nine-month delay in reactivating.

The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a civil proceeding.

The civil claim was administratively dismissed as abandoned in February 2014, but the applicant did not file a request to reactivate the Tribunal application until February 2015, well beyond the 60-day limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the nine-month delay, noting inconsistencies in his explanations and a lack of diligence in ascertaining the status of his civil claim.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

Goffe v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 895

Mana Khami

7 cases2013–2023

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 26, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and sex dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

The applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to his creed or sex.

Furthermore, his pleadings suggested another female employee was also subjected to similar treatment, undermining his claim of sex discrimination.

The Tribunal found the allegations were pure speculation and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Ralf v. Talent Trump International Limited, 2015 HRTO 859

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 22, 2015

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.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not appear to be within its jurisdiction, requiring a response by June 8, 2015.

The applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Jacques c. Résidence St. Mathieu, 2015 HRTO 835

Geneviève Debané

Practising Law - Employed2 cases2015–2015

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

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Gary Mark v. Curtis International Ltd., 2015 HRTO 779

Susan Nicholson

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application reactivated and amended; respondents' request for summary hearing dismissed as premature.

The applicant requested to reactivate and amend her human rights application following the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

The respondents opposed the amendment and requested a summary hearing, relying on a settled grievance and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and amend the application, finding it timely and without prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal found the respondents' request for a summary hearing premature, as they had not yet filed a full response and it was unclear if the grievance addressed all issues in the application.

Helsby-Scouten v. Kingston (City), 2015 HRTO 774

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 10, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the federal entities (Sudbury Tax Centre, Service Canada, TD Bank) and the out-of-province entity (Régie du logement) for lack of jurisdiction.

The application against the Landlord and Tenant Board was dismissed based on judicial immunity.

The application against the remaining respondents was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

Milova v. YM Inc., 2015 HRTO 773

Geneviève Debané

Licence Surrendered - Retired11 cases2009–2016

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file directed submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction as directed by a Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Kelly v. Meraw, 2015 HRTO 752

Joanna S. Rainbow

Geneviève Debané

Practising Law - Employed17 cases2008–2016

Tribunal dismisses request for injunctive relief restricting information sharing for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to restrict the respondent from seeking and communicating information about him to various entities.

The respondent opposed the request on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the order sought was in the nature of injunctive relief, which goes beyond the Tribunal's mandate and powers.

Rigaud Bastien v. York University, 2015 HRTO 749

Laura Cassiani

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 4, 2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel proceedings under the Public Hospitals Act.

The Tribunal issued a letter seeking submissions on whether to defer the human rights application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant's parallel proceeding under the Public Hospitals Act before the Hospital Board of Directors and any subsequent appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.

Romi Juneja v. Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, 2015 HRTO 737

Shane Martinez

16 cases2013–2026

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 2, 2015

Mortgage agent ordered to pay damages for sexual solicitation and racial discrimination against client.

The applicant sought the services of a mortgage agent to purchase her first home.

She alleged that the agent subjected her to sexual solicitation and advances, and made discriminatory comments based on her race.

The Tribunal found the agent's evidence incredible and accepted the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the agent breached the Human Rights Code by making unwelcome sexual advances and racially discriminatory comments.

The corporate respondent was found vicariously liable for the racial discrimination but not the sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in total damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training.

Joyceline Manu v. Centum Fundamental Financial Inc. and Russel Ramlochan, 2015 HRTO 725

Patricia G. Murray

35 cases1990–2017

Melanie de Wit

11 cases2012–2015

Jeremy A. Richler

1 case2015–2015

Andrew McCutcheon

Not Practising Law - Employed19 cases2011–2025

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 1, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination by police and hospital staff dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and disability against a police services board and a hospital.

The applicant missed a connecting flight, exhibited unusual behaviour, and was arrested by police for public intoxication and assaulting an officer.

He was subsequently taken to a hospital where he underwent an involuntary psychiatric assessment.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence that the decisions of the police officers or the doctor were based on discriminatory stereotypes or prejudices rather than the applicant's own conduct.

The application was dismissed.

Pella v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 719

Diane Laranja

In Private Practice7 cases2015–2026

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 28, 2015

Human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal against the respondents.

He claimed he was charged a higher daily rate for his taxicab than other drivers and faced discipline when questioning authority.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the differential fee to the applicant's age, noting the fee change was related to shift changeover times.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to show he had claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Code prior to the alleged reprisal.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Walter Strychowskyj v. Blue Line Transportation Ltd. and Rizutto Brothers Limited, 2015 HRTO 699

Stephen Maio

Not Practising Law - Employed21 cases2009–2017

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application deferred pending completion of overlapping grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding her recent termination from employment.

The Tribunal found that although the application did not directly address the termination, there was sufficient overlap between the application and the grievance, particularly regarding issues related to the applicant's disability and potential remedial issues.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

Graziano-Mooney v. York Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 643

Daniel McDonald

35 cases2009–2024

Geneviève Debané

Employment and Labour Law

Human rights application reactivated after grievance arbitration proceeding concluded.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was premature as the parties were still resolving outstanding damages.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration proceeding had concluded, as the arbitrator's decision explicitly terminated the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application reactivated.

Kevin Fehr v. Securitas Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 639

Applicant

Richard ColemanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mafario AmicucciSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joseph BoyerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Cesare PellaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Guillaume KibaleSelf-represented
1 appearance
Godfred Kwaku HiameySelf-represented
1 appearance
Marc BourguignonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ezra TaylorSelf-represented
1 appearance
Cheri DaviesSelf-represented
1 appearance
Allen RosarioSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lilly WiddisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marvin LagaceSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chatebadhur BalchandSelf-represented
1 appearance
Senan HodonouSelf-represented
1 appearance
Karen DavisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lewis CarrollSelf-represented
1 appearance
Renu VermaSelf-represented
1 appearance
J.D.Self-represented
1 appearance
Lydia SabourinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Janet BlommesteynSelf-represented
1 appearance

Counsel

Stephen MaioCounsel
2 appearances
Fatema DadaCounsel
1 appearance
Daniel McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance
Michael DoupeCounsel
1 appearance
Christopher M. WallaceCounsel
1 appearance
Ted KovacsCounsel
1 appearance
Andrea YorkCounsel
1 appearance
Rina M. LiCounsel
1 appearance
Chris DonszelmannCounsel
1 appearance
Rani KhanCounsel
1 appearance

for Canadian Auto Workers, Local 444

Piper HendersonCounsel
1 appearance

for Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd.

Meaghan RussellCounsel
1 appearance

for Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 146

Mona StaplesCounsel
1 appearance

for Cassellholme for the Aged

Lise EllisCounsel
1 appearance

for Centum Fundamental Financial Inc.

Victor HuoAgent
1 appearance

for Chrysler Canada Inc.

Clifford J. HartCounsel
1 appearance

for Collin & Diana Parker Sales Ltd.

Arthur P. TarasukCounsel
1 appearance

for David Mirvish

Stephen A. BernofskyCounsel
1 appearance

for Dr. Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, Proposed Intervenor

Andrew McCutcheonCounsel
1 appearance

for Eastern Independent Telecommunications Ltd.

Jason WhiteAgent
1 appearance

for himself

Justin StylesSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ronald HarpelleSelf-represented
1 appearance
Russel RamlochanSelf-represented
1 appearance

for IATSE Local 822 (Toronto), IATSE Local 58 (Toronto), IATSE 129 (Hamilton), IATSE 461 Niagara, Cheryl Batulis, Heather Clarkson, Matthew D. Loeb, and Blair Egglestone

Andrea BowkerCounsel
1 appearance

for Marks Work Wearhouse Ltd., Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited and Donna Lodu

S. John PageCounsel
1 appearance

former representative for Mr. Liu

Kenny YauParalegal
1 appearance

for Pegasus Hospitality Group

Markos MarkoulisAgent
1 appearance

for Rogers Communications Partnership

Israel BalterCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party

Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance

for the applicant

D.H.Self-represented
1 appearance
Susan HoustonAgent
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Self-representedSelf-represented
9 appearances
Mafario AmicucciSelf-represented
4 appearances
Nepthys AberdeenSelf-represented
4 appearances
Eric SabbahAgent
3 appearances
S.D.Self-represented
3 appearances
Jean-Alexandre De BousquetSelf-represented
3 appearances
Christine LundyAgent
3 appearances
Jean-Yves BernardSelf-represented
3 appearances
Rigaud BastienSelf-represented
3 appearances
Nagy RiadSelf-represented
3 appearances
Anthony HicksSelf-represented
2 appearances
Stevie Massela SikouSelf-represented
2 appearances
Keith AllenAgent
2 appearances
Joel ShusterSelf-represented
2 appearances
Ayoob KhanAgent
2 appearances
Abdullah MozaffarianSelf-represented
2 appearances
Eric LettsCounsel
2 appearances
Malek BouraouiSelf-represented
2 appearances
Leonard KerriganAgent
2 appearances
Rani KhanCounsel
2 appearances

for the Applicants

Doug MacCleodCounsel
1 appearance
A.B.Self-represented
1 appearance

for the City of Toronto, Myles Currie, Hector Moreno, Trevor Tenn, Ted MacMillan and John Murphy

Omo AkintanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario

Stephanie HobbsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Barry KuretzkyCounsel
3 appearances
Samantha LambCounsel
2 appearances
Ian J. FellowsCounsel
2 appearances
Howard GoldblattCounsel
1 appearance
Mona StaplesCounsel
1 appearance
Danielle BisnarCounsel
1 appearance
Andrew MacIsaacCounsel
1 appearance
J. Craig MorrisonCounsel
1 appearance
Rochelle FoxCounsel
1 appearance
Ryan GoldvineCounsel
1 appearance
Michele Hamilton MeyersCounsel
1 appearance
Alycia ShawCounsel
1 appearance
Christopher PerriCounsel
1 appearance
Natalie WileyCounsel
1 appearance
John O’ReillyCounsel
1 appearance
Lisa LeinveerAgent
1 appearance
Mandy WojcikCounsel
1 appearance
Jerry RasoCounsel
1 appearance
Laurie KentCounsel
1 appearance

for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board

Colin YoungmanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of the Attorney General

Judith ParkerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Judicial Counsel

Geri SansonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Intervenor

Gregory KoCounsel
1 appearance
Andrea LueyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent

Colin JohnstonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent

Daniel McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Joanna S. RainbowCounsel
3 appearances
Frank AngelettiCounsel
3 appearances
Ted KovacsCounsel
3 appearances
Newton WongCounsel
2 appearances
Christine EntaCounsel
2 appearances
Sari SpringerCounsel
2 appearances
Margot BlightCounsel
2 appearances
Saba ZiaCounsel
2 appearances
Judith ParkerCounsel
2 appearances
Lia ChiarottoCounsel
2 appearances
Stephen MaioCounsel
2 appearances
Patty MurrayCounsel
2 appearances
Michael WillsCounsel
2 appearances
Rob LevesqueAgent
1 appearance
Lise EllisAgent
1 appearance
Keri BennettCounsel
1 appearance
Robert BellCounsel
1 appearance
Xavier NavarreteCounsel
1 appearance
Jeanine WattCounsel
1 appearance
Stephen A. BernofskyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent and Proposed Respondents

Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent ARAMARK Canada Ltd.

George MacMasterAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Association de la police de l'Ontario

Michele Hamilton MayersCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent BramCity Taxi

Ron FolkesAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Centum Fundamental Financial Inc.

Victor HuoAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Conseil scolaire de district Catholique Centre-Sud

Christian PaquetteCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Daiva Lenauskus

Andrew McCutcheonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Dresden Industrial

Sven PoysaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

Samantha CrumbCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Eaton Chelsea Hotel

Donna D’AndreaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd

Tina BaldwinAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Hôpital Montfort

André ChampagneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Joanne Euler

Jessica DiFedericoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Le Syndicat Canadien de la fonction Publique et sa section locale 3189

Jean-Michel CorbeilCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent London Police Service

Frank A. AngelettiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ministry of Community and Social Services

Benjamin ParryCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Minto Properties Inc.

Maria MavrikkouCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario College of Teachers

Lai-King HumCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ottawa Police

Iain AspenliederCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondents

Sonia PhilipszAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Raj AnandCounsel
4 appearances
Sheryl JohnsonCounsel
2 appearances
Justin BasingerCounsel
2 appearances
Farah MalikCounsel
2 appearances
Jane M. GoodingCounsel
2 appearances
Lisa CabelCounsel
1 appearance
Neena GuptaCounsel
1 appearance
John D. CampbellCounsel
1 appearance
Marnie BacherCounsel
1 appearance
Jennifer RothSelf-represented
1 appearance
Patty MurrayCounsel
1 appearance
Derek CollinsCounsel
1 appearance
Pamela WakewichSelf-represented
1 appearance
Meredith GaydaCounsel
1 appearance
Sheila C. HandlerCounsel
1 appearance
Kristin BurnettSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mana KhamiCounsel
1 appearance
Mario DelgadoCounsel
1 appearance
Cheryl RovisCounsel
1 appearance
Patricia JasenSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondents 1960 Keel Investments Inc., Ira Marder, Shirley Marder, Michael Sosnowicz, Shlomo Marder, David Dunn, Merle Stein, David Rubin, Michael Harari, Iggy Florez, Marbrook Developments Limited, and D&D Associates Paralegal

David RubinAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondents Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP

Lise LeducCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4721

Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Sharon Galway

Vilija YcasAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 540

Aaron HartCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP and Julie Skinner

Sean McGeeCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Ontario Provincial Police and Wayne Morris

Marnie CorboldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Résidence St. Louis (Bruyère Soins Continus) and Nicole McEachren

Andre ChampagneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Regional Municipality of Peel and Mark Castro

Chantel MorrisonCounsel
1 appearance
Christopher SansonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, The Ottawa Hospital

Raquel ChisolmCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc.

Ted KovacsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 333

Laurie KentCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University Health Network

Naomi MargoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Cheryl FoyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Greg BullenCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Zeta Psi Social Fraternity

Kim DuongCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416 and Alex Krebelj

Devon PaulCounsel
1 appearance

for Wendy Benson

David DeluzioCounsel
1 appearance

for William Osler Health Systems

Melanie de WitCounsel
1 appearance

Next Friend

M.D.Agent
1 appearance

on behalf of Danny Liu

Vartan ManoukianCounsel
1 appearance

on behalf of herself and J.P

V.P.Self-represented
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Navneet SinghSelf-represented
1 appearance

on the applicant's behalf

Susan HoustonAgent
1 appearance

pour la requérante

Lyne DrapeauSelf-represented
1 appearance
Odile CoiminSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sylia ArsenaultSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kibondo Max KilongoziCounsel
1 appearance
Bernadette KanyindaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chantal TieCounsel
1 appearance

pour le requérant

Karimou Dia HantchiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marc Elie OstainvilSelf-represented
1 appearance
J.A. Gilles FortinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Stéphane VilleneuveSelf-represented
1 appearance

pour les intimées

Sébastien HuardCounsel
1 appearance

pour les intimés

Noëlle CalorenCounsel
1 appearance
Christine LonsdaleCounsel
1 appearance
André ChampagneCounsel
1 appearance
Gabriel PoliquinCounsel
1 appearance
Annie BerthiaumeCounsel
1 appearance

pour l'intervenant

Benjamin PiperCounsel
1 appearance
Mona StaplesCounsel
1 appearance

pour l'intimé

Marc DelormeCounsel
1 appearance
Annie BerthiaumeCounsel
1 appearance

pour l'intimée

Jean-Rodrigue YobouaCounsel
1 appearance
David M. BolgerCounsel
1 appearance

pour l'intimée Joanne David

Kevin MacNeillCounsel
1 appearance

pour l'intimée proposée

Lise LeducCounsel
1 appearance

pour l'intimé proposé

Paul MarshallCounsel
1 appearance

procureur

Owen M. ReesCounsel
1 appearance
Paul MarshallCounsel
1 appearance

procureurs

Christian PaquetteCounsel
1 appearance
Claire VachonCounsel
1 appearance

Representative

Agnes WintersingerAgent
1 appearance

Representative, Self-represented

A.B.Self-represented
1 appearance

Respondent

Andrew N. ZabrovskyCounsel
1 appearance
Danny LiuSelf-represented
1 appearance

Self-represented

Hong Bing (Richard) WangSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mazigh MassylesSelf-represented
1 appearance
Janet BlommesteynSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jaime CastellanosSelf-represented
1 appearance

se représentant lui-même

Ronald GariepySelf-represented
1 appearance
Marc Elie OstainvilSelf-represented
1 appearance

Se représentant lui-même

Étienne MouajouSelf-represented
1 appearance

Se représente lui-même

Godfred Kwaku HiameySelf-represented
1 appearance

487

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

8.1

cases/mo

HRTO487(100%)

Decision types

motion

465

trial

/Adjudicator

Geneviève Debané — Vice-chair

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Landlord and Tenant

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Workers' Compensation

Geneviève Debané

Vice-chair·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario·Since 2011

487

cases · 6 yrs · HRTO

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 386Adjudicator· 48Vice-chair· 24Vice-présidente· 23Adjudicator· 3Arbitre· 1

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 24, 2015

Request for interim remedy to reinstate applicant pending human rights application denied.

Torr v. Toronto Paramedic Services, 2015 HRTO 987

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the extended deadline.

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

Williamson v. Walmart Canada Corp., 2015 HRTO 965

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the revised deadline.

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

Andrew White v. Toronto Community Housing, 2015 HRTO 959

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

Leeanne Butler v. F&P Manufacturing Inc., 2015 HRTO 958

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 17, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to dismissal request.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss the application, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the extended deadline.

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

Miles v. Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 89, 2015 HRTO 949

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 14, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to file submissions on jurisdiction.

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

The respondents sought dismissal on the basis that the corporate respondent is federally regulated.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Peters v. United Parcel Services Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 926

Samantha Crumb

9 cases2013–2016

Patricia G. Murray

35 cases1990–2017

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 7, 2015

Application dismissed as applicant failed to provide a good reason for nine-month delay in reactivating.

The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a civil proceeding.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

Goffe v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 895

Mana Khami

7 cases2013–2023

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 26, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and sex dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

The applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to his creed or sex.

Furthermore, his pleadings suggested another female employee was also subjected to similar treatment, undermining his claim of sex discrimination.

The Tribunal found the allegations were pure speculation and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Ralf v. Talent Trump International Limited, 2015 HRTO 859

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 22, 2015

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.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not appear to be within its jurisdiction, requiring a response by June 8, 2015.

The applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Jacques c. Résidence St. Mathieu, 2015 HRTO 835

Geneviève Debané

Practising Law - Employed2 cases2015–2015

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

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Gary Mark v. Curtis International Ltd., 2015 HRTO 779

Susan Nicholson

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application reactivated and amended; respondents' request for summary hearing dismissed as premature.

The applicant requested to reactivate and amend her human rights application following the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

The respondents opposed the amendment and requested a summary hearing, relying on a settled grievance and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and amend the application, finding it timely and without prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal found the respondents' request for a summary hearing premature, as they had not yet filed a full response and it was unclear if the grievance addressed all issues in the application.

Helsby-Scouten v. Kingston (City), 2015 HRTO 774

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 10, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the federal entities (Sudbury Tax Centre, Service Canada, TD Bank) and the out-of-province entity (Régie du logement) for lack of jurisdiction.

The application against the Landlord and Tenant Board was dismissed based on judicial immunity.

The application against the remaining respondents was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

Milova v. YM Inc., 2015 HRTO 773

Geneviève Debané

Licence Surrendered - Retired11 cases2009–2016

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file directed submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction as directed by a Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Kelly v. Meraw, 2015 HRTO 752

Joanna S. Rainbow

Geneviève Debané

Practising Law - Employed17 cases2008–2016

Tribunal dismisses request for injunctive relief restricting information sharing for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to restrict the respondent from seeking and communicating information about him to various entities.

The respondent opposed the request on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the order sought was in the nature of injunctive relief, which goes beyond the Tribunal's mandate and powers.

Rigaud Bastien v. York University, 2015 HRTO 749

Laura Cassiani

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 4, 2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of parallel proceedings under the Public Hospitals Act.

The Tribunal issued a letter seeking submissions on whether to defer the human rights application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

Romi Juneja v. Halton Healthcare Services Corporation, 2015 HRTO 737

Shane Martinez

16 cases2013–2026

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 2, 2015

Mortgage agent ordered to pay damages for sexual solicitation and racial discrimination against client.

The applicant sought the services of a mortgage agent to purchase her first home.

She alleged that the agent subjected her to sexual solicitation and advances, and made discriminatory comments based on her race.

The Tribunal found the agent's evidence incredible and accepted the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the agent breached the Human Rights Code by making unwelcome sexual advances and racially discriminatory comments.

The corporate respondent was found vicariously liable for the racial discrimination but not the sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 in total damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training.

Joyceline Manu v. Centum Fundamental Financial Inc. and Russel Ramlochan, 2015 HRTO 725

Patricia G. Murray

35 cases1990–2017

Melanie de Wit

11 cases2012–2015

Jeremy A. Richler

1 case2015–2015

Andrew McCutcheon

Not Practising Law - Employed19 cases2011–2025

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 1, 2015

Human rights application alleging discrimination by police and hospital staff dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and disability against a police services board and a hospital.

The applicant missed a connecting flight, exhibited unusual behaviour, and was arrested by police for public intoxication and assaulting an officer.

He was subsequently taken to a hospital where he underwent an involuntary psychiatric assessment.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence that the decisions of the police officers or the doctor were based on discriminatory stereotypes or prejudices rather than the applicant's own conduct.

The application was dismissed.

Pella v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 719

Diane Laranja

In Private Practice7 cases2015–2026

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 28, 2015

Human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal against the respondents.

He claimed he was charged a higher daily rate for his taxicab than other drivers and faced discipline when questioning authority.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the differential fee to the applicant's age, noting the fee change was related to shift changeover times.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to show he had claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Code prior to the alleged reprisal.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Walter Strychowskyj v. Blue Line Transportation Ltd. and Rizutto Brothers Limited, 2015 HRTO 699

Stephen Maio

Not Practising Law - Employed21 cases2009–2017

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application deferred pending completion of overlapping grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding her recent termination from employment.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

Graziano-Mooney v. York Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 643

Daniel McDonald

35 cases2009–2024

Geneviève Debané