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

In Private Practice8 cases2011–2018

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

Geneviève Debané

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

Paul Marshall

73 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

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

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

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

In Private Practice35 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 Practice19 cases2014–2025

Geneviève Debané

In Private Practice2 cases2015–2017

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

Geneviève Debané

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

Practising Law - Employed8 cases2009–2026

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

Geneviève Debané

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

Not Practising Law - Employed1 case2015–2015

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

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 27, 2015

Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to provide good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued he relied on incorrect advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and was busy with school and family matters.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the correct deadline six weeks before it expired but failed to act diligently.

The application was dismissed for delay.

Tanver Javaid v. Xerox Canada Ltd. and Teamrecruiter.com, 2015 HRTO 248

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

Employment and Labour 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 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.

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

In Private Practice8 cases2011–2018

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

Geneviève Debané

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

Paul Marshall

73 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.

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

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

Mathew Demeo

Geneviève Debané

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

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

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 23, 2015

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

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

Paul Marshall

73 cases2000–2025

Lise Leduc

37 cases1999–2025

Christine Lonsdale

146 cases2002–2025

Geneviève Debané

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 21, 2015

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.

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

Eric Letts

In Private Practice35 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 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 Practice19 cases2014–2025

Geneviève Debané

In Private Practice2 cases2015–2017

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

Geneviève Debané

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.

Aljaber v. Hanhan, 2015 HRTO 316

Geneviève Debané

Practising Law - Employed8 cases2009–2026

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

Geneviève Debané

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

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

Not Practising Law - Employed1 case2015–2015

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