Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint regarding special diet allowance dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file materials.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting her claim related to cardiovascular disease by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the claim was dismissed as abandoned.

Hylton v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1184

Christine Davies

38 cases2011–2025

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to re-activate human rights application granted; prior OLRB decision did not address substance.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application after his unfair representation complaint against his union was dismissed by the OLRB.

The respondents and the union opposed the re-activation, arguing the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with by the OLRB.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding that the OLRB decision addressed the union's actions, not the respondents' actions, and therefore section 45.1 did not apply.

Meyyan v. Aerotek Manufacturing Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1181

Jo-Anne Pickel

Respondent ordered to file a Response within 14 days or face proceedings without his participation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal successfully notified the respondent by email after several failed attempts by mail.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline and instead sent emails to the Tribunal using highly inappropriate language.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond and ordering him to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, or face the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without him.

Hemani Sharma v. Elvis Benoit, 2014 HRTO 1189

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint regarding special diet allowance dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file materials.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting the remaining claim related to cardiovascular disease, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claim as abandoned.

Stewart v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1186

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint regarding special diet allowance dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file submissions.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the complainant to file materials in support of her remaining claim relating to cardiovascular disease, warning that failure to do so would result in the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claim as abandoned.

Melodina Solon v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1185

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file required materials.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide materials and submissions in support of his remaining claim relating to cardiovascular disease, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claim as abandoned.

Foster v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1182

Julie O’Donnell

16 cases2000–2022

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 7, 2014

Human rights application dismissed for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer based on record of offences and association with a person identified by a Code ground, following a workplace altercation and his subsequent termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the application was untimely and had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant had no convictions constituting a record of offences and provided no information linking his termination to any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

Hulbert v. Cott Beverages, 2014 HRTO 1167

Sonya Clark

1 case2014–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 7, 2014

Motion to add London Life as a respondent and amend remedies granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against Adecco Employment Services Limited.

The applicant subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add London Life Insurance Company as a respondent, arguing it exercised day-to-day control over his employment, and to amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add London Life, finding the applicant made allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation by London Life.

The unopposed request to amend the remedies was also granted.

Mills v. Adecco Employment Services Limited, 2014 HRTO 1166

H. P. Rolph

19 cases1980–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 7, 2014

Request to lift deferral of human rights application denied as related grievance arbitration was ongoing.

The applicant sought to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant argued that she had been waiting too long for her issues to be resolved.

The respondent opposed lifting the deferral, noting that the arbitration proceeding had already begun and further hearing dates were scheduled.

The Tribunal declined to lift the deferral, finding it inappropriate to do so while the arbitration proceeding was ongoing.

Nuria Abdosh v. North York General Hospital, 2014 HRTO 1180

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 6, 2014

Human rights application deferred pending resolution of parallel Small Claims Court proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a determination by the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a related civil claim filed by the applicant in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate due to the significant overlap in the factual background and the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

Fisher v. Ontario (Ministry of Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1173

Andrew Bratt

In Private Practice12 cases2013–2025

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent Employment Standards Act claim raising identical factual allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status, as well as reprisal, related to her maternity leave, accommodation for pumping breast milk, and termination.

Prior to filing the application, she had filed an Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim raising the same issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding financial hardship and partial lack of ESA jurisdiction, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent factual findings.

Hahnfeld v. Nacora Insurance Brokers, 2014 HRTO 1161

K.C. Wysynski

11 cases2014–2018

Gillian Fahy

1 case2014–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

Tribunal permits factual amendments to application but denies adding condominium board members as personal respondents.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking to amend his human rights application and to add and remove certain respondents.

The respondents consented to some changes but opposed the addition of legal submissions and certain personal respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the factual amendments but excluded the legal submissions, noting they are more appropriate for closing arguments.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Condominium Board of Directors as it is not a legal entity, and declined to add individual board members as personal respondents because the Condominium Corporation acknowledged vicarious liability for their actions.

Greaves v. Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 54, 2014 HRTO 1165

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to add personal respondents to human rights application granted.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in housing based on disability requested to add two individuals as personal respondents.

The proposed respondents allegedly owned the building and directed their manager to give preference to employed persons, discriminating against the applicant who received disability benefits.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondents, finding that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation and that a remedy against them might be appropriate.

Benstead v. Farr, 2014 HRTO 1163

Thom Yachnin

1 case2014–2014

George Parris

170 cases2006–2026

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance arbitration on the same issues.

The applicant alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code when she was not hired for a full-time cook position.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a grievance had been filed and referred to arbitration regarding the same matter.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

Guthrie v. Ontario (Children and Youth Services), 2014 HRTO 1162

Yola Ventresca

9 cases2009–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 30, 2014

Respondent's request to dismiss part of application as untimely dismissed as already decided.

The respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, specifically an incident from November 2011.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the timeliness of the allegations had already been addressed in a previous interim decision (2014 HRTO 781), which found a sufficient thematic connection between the incidents to consider them timely.

The matter was directed to mediation.

Sinclair v. London Public Library, 2014 HRTO 1144

Chantal Tie

30 cases2001–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Tribunal grants applicant's request to add manager as personal respondent and amend application to claim interest.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add her manager as a personal respondent and to amend her application to include a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest.

The corporate respondent consented to both requests, and the proposed personal respondent did not file submissions.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondent, noting that the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation could support a Code violation and warrant a specific remedy against him.

The request to amend the application to claim interest was also granted.

Merrill v. WC Edwards Lumber, a division of Common Wealth Plywood Company Ltd., 2014 HRTO 1131

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights claims regarding specific medical conditions dismissed as abandoned for failure to file materials.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting claims related to chronic constipation, anemia, anxiety, dysphagia, and PTSD, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file the materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while noting that claims regarding hypertension and milk allergies remain active.

Terrance Williams v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1129

Jo-Anne Pickel

Claims regarding specific medical conditions dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file required materials.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims related to chronic constipation and food allergies, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while noting that other claims remained subject to settlement discussions.

Pedro Venegas v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 1128

Dan Guttman

27 cases2006–2023

Jo-Anne Pickel