Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2015

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to banking services provided by the respondent bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated bank.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the respondent falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Bolus v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2015 HRTO 1152

Jennifer Scott

In Private Practice16 cases2007–2021

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 extended deadline.

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

Pascal Adorgloh v. Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration, 2015 HRTO 1146

Raquel Chisholm

Jennifer Scott

Request for early production of documents denied as premature; extension of time to file Response granted.

The respondent in a human rights application requested early production of documents from the applicant's Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department file, and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production, finding no exceptional circumstances that would prevent the respondent from filing its Response without the documents, as the application primarily concerned managerial conduct rather than workplace accommodation.

The respondent was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

Philippe v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2015 HRTO 1143

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 27, 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 the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

Erica Charette v. Tzatz Collection, 2015 HRTO 1138

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 26, 2015

Respondent deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a Response.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

Gordon v. Anthony Ash, 2015 HRTO 1134

Richard Nixon

24 cases1983–2026

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 18, 2015

Interim decision resolving production requests and motions to add parties in a racial discrimination claim.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination regarding services at a gas station.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several requests.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's spouse to be added as an applicant, subject to submissions on delay.

The request to add the gas station operator as a respondent was denied due to delay.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce a videotape of the incident and records regarding the termination of the gas attendant.

The applicant was ordered to produce employment and health records if she intended to pursue claims for lost wages and health impacts.

Crawford v. Imperial Oil, 2015 HRTO 1103

Jennifer Scott

Request to remove father as litigation guardian denied; no clear conflict of interest established.

The applicant father filed human rights applications on behalf of his children regarding the respondent's refusal to provide two health care cards for children residing in two family homes.

The children's mother, an interested party, requested that the father be removed as litigation guardian, alleging a conflict of interest due to his business promoting solutions for two-home families.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the mother failed to establish a clear and demonstrated conflict of interest, as the father's business interests were not contrary to the children's interests in the applications.

E.L. v. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, 2015 HRTO 1095

Jennifer Scott

Two human rights applications involving overlapping facts and parties consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant filed two human rights applications, one alleging harassment on the basis of sex in the social area of contracts, and a second alleging reprisal resulting from the first application.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications under Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure.

Applying the factors from Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal found that the applications involved the same parties, overlapping facts, and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing prejudice.

The applications were ordered to be consolidated and heard together.

Potomski v. Menzies, 2015 HRTO 1092

Thomas Stefanik

17 cases1982–2016

Jennifer Scott

Personal respondent removed and applicant ordered to produce mitigation documents in human rights complaint.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove a personal respondent and to compel the applicant to produce documents related to mitigation of damages.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud criteria and removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to keep him in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce his income tax returns and documents relating to his job search and subsequent employment, as they were arguably relevant to his claim for lost wages.

Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 1044

Jennifer Scott

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 was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

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

Hyun Whan Kim v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2015 HRTO 1043

Jennifer Scott

Practising Law - Employed5 cases2014–2017

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 specified deadline.

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

Hyun Whan Kim v. Aroga, 2015 HRTO 1042

Sian Williams

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 30, 2015

Tribunal orders university to produce Admissions Committee documents and member names, rejecting FIPPA shield.

The applicant sought production of documents and the names of the members of the Admissions Committee that denied his application for admission to an academic program.

The respondent objected, citing FIPPA and privilege, and requested an undertaking that the applicant not contact the committee members.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the names and the documents, finding them arguably relevant, and held that FIPPA does not limit the Tribunal's power to order disclosure.

The Tribunal also set out a process for the respondent to assert privilege over specific documents.

Roch Longueépée v. University of Waterloo, 2015 HRTO 1016

Kevin Inwood

Practising Law - Employed7 cases2009–2015

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 29, 2015

Tribunal orders production of hiring records and familial relationship data in discrimination claim.

The applicant, alleging age and sex discrimination in a hiring process for underground miners, brought a Request for Orders During Proceedings seeking production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce information regarding the familial relationships of the successful candidates and all hiring information, including government modules, resumes, and interview summaries.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of the names of female underground production miners, finding the information had little relevance.

Blasutti v. Vale Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 1010

Jennifer Scott

Human rights application dismissed for extreme delay and failure to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former elementary school and the school board, which she attended in the 1960s.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed decades late and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay or articulate the alleged discrimination.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Dzenis v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 863

Kathryn Bird

Jennifer Scott

Reconsideration granted; application reinstated as applicant lacked effective notice of the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend an in-person hearing.

The applicant claimed she did not receive fair notice of the hearing date due to confusing communications from the Tribunal that focused on a separate teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notice was confusing and that the applicant did not receive effective notice of the in-person hearing.

The request for reconsideration was allowed for procedural fairness reasons.

Tonka Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. and Savers Inc., 2015 HRTO 861

No remedy awarded for discriminatory job ad where applicant showed no impact and lacked bona fides.

Following a finding of liability that the respondents contravened the Human Rights Code by posting a job advertisement for a server stating 'female only', a hearing was held to determine the appropriate remedy.

The applicant sought $25,000 in monetary compensation and systemic orders.

The Tribunal declined to award monetary compensation, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence of the impact of the advertisement itself and questioning whether he was a bona fide job applicant.

The Tribunal also declined to order systemic remedies, noting the respondents had already implemented human rights policies and training.

Cenanovic v. 2332489 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 833

Kathryn Bird

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 11, 2015

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

The applicant failed to attend the continuation of the hearing on June 10, 2015, after having been notified of the date.

The applicant also failed to communicate with the Tribunal regarding her absence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

Tonka Misetich v. Value Village Inc. and Savers Inc., 2015 HRTO 778

Jennifer Scott

Practising Law - Employed6 cases2013–2026

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 because the applicant had signed a full and final release regarding the same issues.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

Teresa Goguen v. DeafBlind Ontario Services and Shannon Girard, 2015 HRTO 739

Nidhi Punyarthi

Jennifer Scott

Tribunal orders respondent landlord to produce tenant file and defers section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming the respondent landlord failed to accommodate his mental health during Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce its tenant file on the applicant, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to exchange hearing documents and deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code to the hearing.

Clark v. Queen Leslie Reality Ltd., 2015 HRTO 738

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 3, 2015

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which the respondents requested be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing union grievance proceeding based on the same facts.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about delay and whether her human rights issues would be addressed.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance proceeding and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

Reich v. Durham Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 730

Appellants

LY and PYSelf-represented
1 appearance

Applicant

MaSelf-represented
1 appearance
G.E.Self-represented
1 appearance
Orlette RichardsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Georgina JeficSelf-represented
1 appearance
Eugene D'OrazioSelf-represented
1 appearance
Carlo CardileSelf-represented
1 appearance
DdSelf-represented
1 appearance
Joe ClarkSelf-represented
1 appearance
JsSelf-represented
1 appearance
SdSelf-represented
1 appearance
MdSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rosemonde PhilippeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Abdalla AliSelf-represented
1 appearance
Riaz FancySelf-represented
1 appearance
Barbara KueberSelf-represented
1 appearance
Troy DubéSelf-represented
1 appearance
Nehemiah ThompsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mary Louise HeyensSelf-represented
1 appearance

appointed representative to cross-examine the client

Maureen SalamaAgent
1 appearance

Counsel

Jennifer M. FantiniCounsel
2 appearances
Barbara TuerCounsel
1 appearance
Gail GeronimoCounsel
1 appearance
Gene C. ColmanCounsel
1 appearance
Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance
Kate DeardenCounsel
1 appearance
Michael KyneCounsel
1 appearance
Caroline UrsulakCounsel
1 appearance
Daniel PugenCounsel
1 appearance
Jennifer KirshenCounsel
1 appearance
A. ChimaCounsel
1 appearance
Aaron SchwartzCounsel
1 appearance
Carolyn KayCounsel
1 appearance
Sari L. SpringerCounsel
1 appearance
Celia ChandlerCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Appellant

George (Knia) SinghCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent

Gillian Tuck KutarnaCounsel
1 appearance

for Andrea Seepersaud

Jordan GoldblattCounsel
1 appearance

for Association of Ontario Health Centres

Aida AbrahaCounsel
1 appearance
Yola GrantCounsel
1 appearance

for B & S Associates Professional Corporation and Kenneth Jeffrey

Ramon AndalCounsel
2 appearances

for G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd

Tina BaldwinAgent
1 appearance

for Guelph Community Health Centre, Lloyd Bowers, Laurie Malleau, Jerry Mykitschak, Karan Mann-Bowers, Nancy Mykitschak, Karrie Cumming, Christina Mann and Kate Vsetula

Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Sean HanleyCounsel
1 appearance
Robert CharneyCounsel
1 appearance
Darren ThorneCounsel
1 appearance

for herself

Shelby BurnsSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Jim Bustard and Arpad Takacs

Alan McConnellAgent
1 appearance

for Labourers’ International Union of North America

Brad RidgeCounsel
1 appearance

for Lorie Sloan

William CounterAgent
1 appearance

for Minto Properties Inc.

Maria MavrikkouCounsel
1 appearance

for Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities)

Meagan WilliamsCounsel
1 appearance

for Southrim Enterprises Inc., Marg Green, Cecile Carrol, and Lorianne Ledwez

Sharon ChilcottCounsel
2 appearances

for Southrim Management Company Limited

Sharon ChilcottCounsel
1 appearance

for Stock Transportation

Petula FeraAgent
1 appearance

for the Amherstburg Police Association

Jeffrey HewittCounsel
1 appearance

for the Amherstburg Police Services Board

Edward PosliffCounsel
1 appearance

for the Appellant

Susan von AchtenCounsel
1 appearance
R.s.Self-represented
1 appearance
H.k.Self-represented
1 appearance

for the Applicant

David BakerCounsel
13 appearances
Jemila MacanovicSelf-represented
6 appearances
Tonka MisetichSelf-represented
5 appearances
Krishna BadrinarayanAgent
5 appearances
Grant HutchinsonSelf-represented
5 appearances
Wade PoziomkaCounsel
4 appearances
Glen MorrisonAgent
4 appearances
Ruchi SharmaSelf-represented
4 appearances
Angel LozanoSelf-represented
3 appearances
Anthony TibbsCounsel
3 appearances
Osborne BarnwellCounsel
3 appearances
Bruce BestCounsel
3 appearances
Matthew MasonSelf-represented
3 appearances
Felix MillienSelf-represented
2 appearances
Khizer AnwarCounsel
2 appearances
Grace PermaulCounsel
2 appearances
Carolyn JohnstonCounsel
2 appearances
Amanda DriscollCounsel
2 appearances
Sandi Marie CrawfordSelf-represented
2 appearances
Kingsley LaurinCounsel
2 appearances

for the Applicant Jane Mauch

Jane MauchSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Applicants

E.J.Self-represented
2 appearances
Candice PilgrimCounsel
1 appearance
M.g.Self-represented
1 appearance
R.C.Self-represented
1 appearance
A.b.Self-represented
1 appearance
Debora MacKenzieSelf-represented
1 appearance
M.C.Self-represented
1 appearance
G.r.Self-represented
1 appearance
Eugene D’OrazioSelf-represented
1 appearance
K.g.Self-represented
1 appearance
E.L.Self-represented
1 appearance
Carlo CardileSelf-represented
1 appearance
Yvonne ClereboutSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Bazelon Centre for Mental Health Law

Jennifer MathisCounsel
1 appearance

for the Canadian Association for Community Living, Community Living Ontario and People First of Canada

Katharine MontpetitCounsel
1 appearance

for the Canadian Union of Public Employees

Anne GregoryCounsel
1 appearance

for the College

Debra McKennaCounsel
4 appearances
Anastasia-Maria HountalasCounsel
3 appearances
Kenzie BuntingCounsel
2 appearances
Emily GrahamCounsel
2 appearances
Fiona WangCounsel
2 appearances
Samil ChagparCounsel
1 appearance
Enniael StairCounsel
1 appearance
Ruth AinsworthCounsel
1 appearance
Joanna BirenbaumCounsel
1 appearance
Elisabeth WidnerCounsel
1 appearance
Ada JeffreyCounsel
1 appearance
Yufei (Fiona) WangCounsel
1 appearance

for the Commission

Folarin ObikoyaAgent
1 appearance
Anthony GriffinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Complainant

Susan UrselCounsel
1 appearance
Guy SeguinAgent
1 appearance
Rosalyn ForresterSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Corporate Respondent

Sarah CrossleyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Cathy PikeCounsel
2 appearances
Mandy WojcikCounsel
1 appearance
Catherine DavisCounsel
1 appearance
Devon PaulCounsel
1 appearance
Matthew RootUnion representative
1 appearance
Bruce PriceCounsel
1 appearance
Rebecca WoodrowCounsel
1 appearance
Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance
Michael HancockCounsel
1 appearance
Dave SteeleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor Ontario Human Rights Commission

Cathy PikeCounsel
2 appearances
Reema KhawjaCounsel
2 appearances
Insiya EssajeeCounsel
2 appearances
Sunil GurmukhCounsel
2 appearances
Tony GriffinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenors Canadian Association for Community Living, Community Living Ontario and People First of Canada

S. Priya MorleyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Office of Human Rights & Equity Services, McMaster University

Andrew PintoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Office of the Children's Lawyer

Heather Smith-McGurkCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Anthony GriffinCounsel
1 appearance

for the registrant

Colin JohnstonCounsel
2 appearances
Rebecca YoungCounsel
1 appearance
Brock TurvilleCounsel
1 appearance
Keary GraceCounsel
1 appearance
Derek HooperCounsel
1 appearance
Jonathan MertzCounsel
1 appearance
Mark HuckaboneCounsel
1 appearance
Jordan StoneCounsel
1 appearance
Zoe HountalasCounsel
1 appearance
Adam PatenaudeCounsel
1 appearance
Lisa E. HamiltonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Registrant

Kurian MathewSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gail-Anne CumberbatchSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Hart SchwartzCounsel
5 appearances
Donald ShanksCounsel
5 appearances
Richard NixonCounsel
4 appearances
Sian WilliamsCounsel
4 appearances
Kalli ChapmanCounsel
3 appearances
Ann BurkeCounsel
3 appearances
Matthew J. MihailovichCounsel
3 appearances
Kathryn BirdCounsel
3 appearances
D. Brent LabordCounsel
3 appearances
Matthew CornettCounsel
2 appearances
Daryn JeffriesCounsel
2 appearances
Mark LewisCounsel
2 appearances
David RossCounsel
2 appearances
Neil RabovskySelf-represented
2 appearances
David BannonCounsel
2 appearances
Ann DinnertCounsel
1 appearance
Toby YoungCounsel
1 appearance
Andrew ListerCounsel
1 appearance
Sean HanleyCounsel
1 appearance
Ryan O’LearyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board

Lynn HarndenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Centre for Independent Living Toronto (C.I.L.T.) Inc.

Martin SmithCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Jill Scrutton-FulfordCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent City of Toronto

Amy MurakamiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Clinton Czapla

Clinton CzaplaSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent CSH Wenleigh LTC Inc.

Pamela LeiperCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Daniel Pang

Aaron SchwartzCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Edgardo Cubias

Maria KotsopoulosCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario - Peel Elementary Teachers Local

Adam BeattyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, Peel Elementary Teachers Local

Adam BeattyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Peel Elementary Teachers Local

Adam BeattyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent G.A.

G.A.Self-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent General Motors of Canada Limited

David BannonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Genevieve Anthony

Megan MutchesonCounsel
2 appearances
Genevieve AnthonySelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Children and Youth Services

Mimi SinghCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Vanier Centre for Women)

Jordana JosephCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent HMQ in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Bella FoxCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Michael Byerley

Hugh DyerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Minister Municipal Affairs and Housing

Sara BlakeCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Modern Taxi Cab Limited

Joseph DartCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Peel District School Board

Neal PatelCounsel
2 appearances
Roy FilionCounsel
1 appearance
Evelyn DormerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Precision Property Management Inc.

Michael RamdharryAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Primary Response Inc.

Mark MendlCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Kathryn BirdCounsel
4 appearances
Paula RusakCounsel
3 appearances
Lisa KwasekCounsel
3 appearances
Jordan WinchCounsel
2 appearances
Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
2 appearances
D. Alan WhyteCounsel
2 appearances
Darragh MeagherCounsel
2 appearances
C.P. GoldsonCounsel
2 appearances
Robert TigheCounsel
2 appearances
Donna D’AndreaCounsel
2 appearances
Self-representedSelf-represented
2 appearances
Robert DunfordCounsel
2 appearances
Sara BenincasaAgent
2 appearances
Brenda BowlbyCounsel
2 appearances
Michelle MacGillivrayCounsel
2 appearances
Naomi CallaCounsel
2 appearances
Christopher DianaCounsel
2 appearances
Ottavio IacopiniParalegal
1 appearance
S. Zachary GreenCounsel
1 appearance
M. David RossCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Dan Benedict Co-op Homes, Ellen Bowie and Leslie Staddon

Brent J. ForemanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

S. Zachary GreenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Vanier Centre for Women)

Jordana JosephCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Juneid Patel and Police Chief William Blair

Lisa CabelCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondents Leisureworld Caregiving Centre – O’Connor Gate, Cora Murray and Carol McIlveen

Daryn JeffriesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada and Karen Walsh

Jesse KuglerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Chief of Police and Toronto Police Services Board

Antonella CeddiaCounsel
2 appearances
Philip ChanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Toronto Police Service (43 Division) and Toronto Police Services Board

David GourlayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 and Maria Da Silva

Virginia NelderCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Walker Head Lawyers, Kyle Armagon and Cheryl Bartlett

Alexandra Lev-FarrellCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Workplace Safety Insurance Board and Frances Lord

Eric KupkaCounsel
1 appearance
Greg BullenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Algonquin-Lakeshore Unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association

Bernie HansonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Consulting Matrix Inc.

Cindy CohenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Corporation of the County of Grey

Andréa DedrickCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Community Housing Corporation

Christina HenderinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto District School Board

Elizabeth WinterCounsel
1 appearance
Lauri ReesorCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board

David GourlayCounsel
4 appearances

for the Respondent, Toronto Police Services Board

David GourlayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Unifor Canada

Anthony DaleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Society

Mitch SnipAgent
1 appearance

for the Toronto District School Board

Lauri ReesorCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Police Services Board

David GourlayCounsel
1 appearance

for Trios College, Oshawa Campus

Andrew EbejerAgent
1 appearance

for William Blair and Juneid Patel

Lisa CabelCounsel
1 appearance

for Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Frances Lord

Gurjit BrarCounsel
1 appearance

for Workplace Safey and Insurance Board and Frances Lord

Gurjit BrarCounsel
1 appearance

Interested Party

H.M.Self-represented
1 appearance

Litigation Guardian

G.E.Self-represented
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Myrlande MathurinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Adrienne HarrisSelf-represented
1 appearance

On Her Own Behalf

Julie WasylnkaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Angela BrowneSelf-represented
1 appearance
Myrlande MathurinSelf-represented
1 appearance

On his own behalf

Gary DemenintSelf-represented
1 appearance
Masoud NaddafiSelf-represented
1 appearance

On His Own Behalf

Tom LaFortuneSelf-represented
2 appearances
Robert CookeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Terry LumleySelf-represented
1 appearance
Juan GonzalezSelf-represented
1 appearance
David MoyalSelf-represented
1 appearance
Abdolreza TahnaSelf-represented
1 appearance

Representative

Gary CowanAgent
1 appearance
Robert BilichAgent
1 appearance

Respondent

Patty MurrayCounsel
1 appearance
Raquel ChisholmCounsel
1 appearance
Jack SullensCounsel
1 appearance
Dawn DuboisCounsel
1 appearance
Nidhi PunyarthiCounsel
1 appearance
Kunuwanimano Child and Family ServicesSelf-represented
1 appearance

self-represented

Aziza Mohssen SobhSelf-represented
1 appearance
Suman KhulbeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jamie MandlsohnSelf-represented
1 appearance

Self-represented

Jackie YoungSelf-represented
1 appearance

Self-Represented

Yvonne SinghSelf-represented
1 appearance

445

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

2.0

cases/mo

HRTO389(87%)

OCFSRB37(8%)

OMTDT8(2%)

OPSDT5(1%)

OCPDT4(1%)

ORPDT2(0%)

Decision types

motion

351

trial

appeal

costs

/Adjudicator

Jennifer Scott — Associate Chair

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Employment and Labour Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Health Law

Landlord and Tenant

Indigenous Legal Issues

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Workers' Compensation

Jennifer Scott

Associate Chair·Child and Family Services Review Board·Since 2007

OCFSRB OMTDT OCPDT ORPDT OPSDT HRTO

445

cases · 20 yrs · HRTO, OCFSRB, OMTDT, OPSDT, OCPDT, ORPDT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 286Vice-chair· 53Adjudicator· 46panel chair· Chair· 17Associate Chair· 10Panel Member· 8Presiding Member· 8Adjudicator· 6

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2015

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to banking services provided by the respondent bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated bank.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the respondent falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Bolus v. Toronto Dominion Bank, 2015 HRTO 1152

Jennifer Scott

In Private Practice16 cases2007–2021

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 extended deadline.

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

Pascal Adorgloh v. Canadian Railway Office of Arbitration, 2015 HRTO 1146

Raquel Chisholm

Jennifer Scott

Request for early production of documents denied as premature; extension of time to file Response granted.

The respondent was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

Philippe v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2015 HRTO 1143

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 27, 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 the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

Erica Charette v. Tzatz Collection, 2015 HRTO 1138

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 26, 2015

Respondent deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a Response.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

Gordon v. Anthony Ash, 2015 HRTO 1134

Richard Nixon

24 cases1983–2026

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 18, 2015

Interim decision resolving production requests and motions to add parties in a racial discrimination claim.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination regarding services at a gas station.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several requests.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's spouse to be added as an applicant, subject to submissions on delay.

The request to add the gas station operator as a respondent was denied due to delay.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce a videotape of the incident and records regarding the termination of the gas attendant.

The applicant was ordered to produce employment and health records if she intended to pursue claims for lost wages and health impacts.

Crawford v. Imperial Oil, 2015 HRTO 1103

Jennifer Scott

Request to remove father as litigation guardian denied; no clear conflict of interest established.

The applicant father filed human rights applications on behalf of his children regarding the respondent's refusal to provide two health care cards for children residing in two family homes.

The children's mother, an interested party, requested that the father be removed as litigation guardian, alleging a conflict of interest due to his business promoting solutions for two-home families.

E.L. v. Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, 2015 HRTO 1095

Jennifer Scott

Two human rights applications involving overlapping facts and parties consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant filed two human rights applications, one alleging harassment on the basis of sex in the social area of contracts, and a second alleging reprisal resulting from the first application.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications under Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure.

The applications were ordered to be consolidated and heard together.

Potomski v. Menzies, 2015 HRTO 1092

Thomas Stefanik

17 cases1982–2016

Jennifer Scott

Personal respondent removed and applicant ordered to produce mitigation documents in human rights complaint.

The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove a personal respondent and to compel the applicant to produce documents related to mitigation of damages.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud criteria and removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to keep him in the proceeding.

Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 1044

Jennifer Scott

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 was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

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

Hyun Whan Kim v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2015 HRTO 1043

Jennifer Scott

Practising Law - Employed5 cases2014–2017

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 specified deadline.

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

Hyun Whan Kim v. Aroga, 2015 HRTO 1042

Sian Williams

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 30, 2015

Tribunal orders university to produce Admissions Committee documents and member names, rejecting FIPPA shield.

The applicant sought production of documents and the names of the members of the Admissions Committee that denied his application for admission to an academic program.

The respondent objected, citing FIPPA and privilege, and requested an undertaking that the applicant not contact the committee members.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the names and the documents, finding them arguably relevant, and held that FIPPA does not limit the Tribunal's power to order disclosure.

The Tribunal also set out a process for the respondent to assert privilege over specific documents.

Roch Longueépée v. University of Waterloo, 2015 HRTO 1016

Kevin Inwood

Practising Law - Employed7 cases2009–2015

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 29, 2015

Tribunal orders production of hiring records and familial relationship data in discrimination claim.

The applicant, alleging age and sex discrimination in a hiring process for underground miners, brought a Request for Orders During Proceedings seeking production of documents.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of the names of female underground production miners, finding the information had little relevance.

Blasutti v. Vale Canada Limited, 2015 HRTO 1010

Jennifer Scott

Human rights application dismissed for extreme delay and failure to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former elementary school and the school board, which she attended in the 1960s.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed decades late and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay or articulate the alleged discrimination.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Dzenis v. Toronto District School Board, 2015 HRTO 863

Kathryn Bird

Jennifer Scott

In Private Practice3 cases2015–2015

Reconsideration granted; application reinstated as applicant lacked effective notice of the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend an in-person hearing.

The applicant claimed she did not receive fair notice of the hearing date due to confusing communications from the Tribunal that focused on a separate teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notice was confusing and that the applicant did not receive effective notice of the in-person hearing.

The request for reconsideration was allowed for procedural fairness reasons.

Tonka Misetich v. Value Village Stores Inc. and Savers Inc., 2015 HRTO 861

Sanja Mavrak

C.P. Goldson

2 cases2014–2015

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 22, 2015

No remedy awarded for discriminatory job ad where applicant showed no impact and lacked bona fides.

The applicant sought $25,000 in monetary compensation and systemic orders.

The Tribunal also declined to order systemic remedies, noting the respondents had already implemented human rights policies and training.

Cenanovic v. 2332489 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 833

Kathryn Bird

Jennifer Scott

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 11, 2015

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

The applicant failed to attend the continuation of the hearing on June 10, 2015, after having been notified of the date.

The applicant also failed to communicate with the Tribunal regarding her absence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

Tonka Misetich v. Value Village Inc. and Savers Inc., 2015 HRTO 778

Jennifer Scott

Practising Law - Employed6 cases2013–2026

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 because the applicant had signed a full and final release regarding the same issues.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

Teresa Goguen v. DeafBlind Ontario Services and Shannon Girard, 2015 HRTO 739

Nidhi Punyarthi

Jennifer Scott

Tribunal orders respondent landlord to produce tenant file and defers section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming the respondent landlord failed to accommodate his mental health during Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce its tenant file on the applicant, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to exchange hearing documents and deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code to the hearing.

Clark v. Queen Leslie Reality Ltd., 2015 HRTO 738

Jennifer Scott