Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 14, 2015

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to maintain current contact information with the Tribunal.

Mail sent to the applicant was returned, and the applicant failed to respond to multiple emails from the Tribunal directing him to confirm his intention to proceed and provide a valid mailing address.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Craig Charette v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2015 HRTO 634

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 4, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to provide reasonable explanation for 27-month delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination 27 months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to difficulty finding counsel, difficulty filling out the form, and the recent death of his father.

The Tribunal found these explanations did not establish good faith delay, noting the father's death occurred after the application was filed.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Masoumeh Hashemimazinan v. Express, 2015 HRTO 560

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 1, 2015

Deferred human rights application reactivated following conclusion of related WSIB proceeding.

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

The applicant provided a decision from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board indicating the other proceeding had concluded.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the other proceeding was concluded, reactivated the application, and ordered the respondent to file a Response.

Pardeep Chodha v. 1352866 ONTARIO INC. O/A Times Kitchen and Bath, 2015 HRTO 553

Christine Johnson

In Private Practice22 cases2013–2025

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 29, 2015

Application reactivated and amendment permitted following conclusion of related WSIB proceeding.

The applicant requested to reactivate and amend his human rights application following the conclusion of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceeding.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and granted the request to amend, noting it was timely and would not prejudice the respondent.

Stéphane Beauchamp v. Grandor Lumber Inc., 2015 HRTO 548

Sébastien Huard

8 cases2011–2018

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 29, 2015

Tribunal reconsiders and sets aside dismissal of application due to administrative error in processing submissions.

The Tribunal reconsidered its previous decision dismissing the application as abandoned on its own initiative.

The Tribunal discovered that the applicant had indeed filed submissions in response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, but due to an administrative error, they were not before the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the failure to consider the submissions outweighed the public interest in finality, set aside the previous decision, and ordered the respondent to file a Response.

Carolle Chrétien v. Day Care St. Mathieu, 2015 HRTO 545

Mathew Demeo

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), which raised issues of reprisals under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the proceedings and concluded that concurrent proceedings could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The request was granted and the application was deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

McReynolds v. Union Gas Limited, 2015 HRTO 530

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to identify a protected ground.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to set out any incidents of discrimination or identify a protected ground.

The applicant's submissions described her employment termination and withdrawn criminal charges but did not link the allegations to the Code or identify when she claimed a right under section 8.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

Franchi v. Revera Inc., 2015 HRTO 531

Paul Marshall

71 cases2000–2025

Geneviève Debané

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent civil proceeding involving same facts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a civil statement of claim had been issued against the same respondents.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the completion of the civil proceeding to avoid contrary findings.

M.A. v. Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario, 2015 HRTO 533

Doreen Snelling

Geneviève Debané

Deferral of human rights application denied as related grievance proceeding had already concluded.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a related grievance proceeding.

The respondent advised that the grievance proceeding had already concluded in a settlement and requested the application be dismissed as duplicative.

The Tribunal found deferral inappropriate since the grievance had concluded, and directed the respondent to file a full Response where it could make its request to dismiss.

Harold Heigh v. Ventra Plastics Peterborough, 2015 HRTO 532

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 23, 2015

Childcare worker awarded $18,671 after employer reduced hours and effectively terminated her due to pregnancy.

The applicant, a childcare worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer significantly reduced her hours and effectively terminated her employment following pregnancy-related absences.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's uncontradicted evidence, finding that the reduction in hours was directly linked to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal awarded $8,671 in lost wages and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Shanelle Richards v. 905950 Ontario Ltd. o/a Storybook Childcare Centre, 2015 HRTO 517

Human rights application and request to add parties dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisals by the Ontario College of Teachers and one of its employees.

He subsequently sought to add his former employer, a school board, and his union as respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the request to add the school board because the applicant had signed a full and final release and the allegations were out of time.

The request to add the union was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the union's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Finally, the application against the College was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to provide evidence that the College's actions were motivated by an intent to reprise against him for claiming his rights under the Code.

Ostainvil c. Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario, 2015 HRTO 499

Eric Letts

35 cases2014–2025

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 24, 2015

Reconsideration denied; corporate applicant lacked standing to claim family status discrimination regarding school busing policies.

The applicant, a corporation, requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing its application against the respondents regarding their school busing policies.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because there was no direct relationship or nexus between the applicant and the respondents, and the applicant could not rely on the rights of parents or children to start a chain of discrimination.

The Tribunal found no conflict with established case law and declined to reconsider the decision.

Fair Parenting Inc. v. Durham Student Transportation Services, 2015 HRTO 372

Gregory Ko

In Private Practice18 cases2014–2025

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 17, 2015

Request to intervene denied due to potential prejudice and delay given proximity to hearing.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

The request was filed two weeks before the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that granting intervenor status at such a late stage could prejudice the parties and delay the commencement of the hearing.

Christopher Karas v. École secondaire catholique Sainte-Famille and Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, 2015 HRTO 344

Cheryl Pooran

2 cases2015–2017

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 17, 2015

Tribunal accepts self-represented applicant's non-compliant Reply as an amendment to the Application to avoid delay.

The respondent requested an order to remove an individual respondent named for the first time in the self-represented applicant's Reply, and to strike the Reply as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal noted that a party cannot be unilaterally added in a Reply, meaning the personal respondent was never properly added.

Adopting a flexible approach for self-represented parties, the Tribunal declined to strike the pleadings or require refiling.

Instead, it accepted the Reply and the applicant's Form 11 as amendments to the Application and granted the respondent time to file responding submissions.

Jones v. Camphill Communities Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 336

Abi Martinez

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 13, 2015

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent's employment falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against the respondent, an employee of the federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the matter falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the relationship and the allegations pertained to the respondent's duties as a federal employee, placing the matter exclusively within federal jurisdiction.

Aljaber v. Hanhan, 2015 HRTO 316

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 12, 2015

Human rights application reactivated after conclusion of related WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a second request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of appeals at the WSIB.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the WSIB proceedings had concluded and ordered the application to be reactivated, directing the respondents to file their responses within 35 days.

Aceto v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2015 HRTO 310

Rina M. Li

8 cases2009–2026

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 12, 2015

Human rights application alleging discriminatory service by court staff dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that court staff provided discriminatory service based on gender identity, gender expression, family status, and marital status by refusing to accept his motion materials in a custody dispute.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based solely on subjective perception without factual foundation, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Wang v. Superior Court of Justice, 2015 HRTO 309

Daniel McDonald

35 cases2009–2024

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 10, 2015

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration regarding the same termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory termination of employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because an outstanding grievance regarding the termination had been referred to arbitration.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the union would not raise a breach of the Human Rights Code at arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding substantial overlap in the facts and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

Fehr v. Securitas, 2015 HRTO 286

Jean-Rodrigue Yoboua

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 9, 2015

Human rights application against federal public sector union dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by his union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

The respondent union argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the employment relationship is federally regulated.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's employment in the federal public sector and his relationship with his bargaining agent are governed by federal legislation.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Villeneuve c. Alliance de la fonction publique du Canada-Syndicat national de la santé, 2015 HRTO 275

Brian Silva

7 cases2013–2016

Geneviève Debané