Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 5, 2014

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 her remaining claims, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

Consequently, the remaining claims were dismissed as abandoned.

Griffin v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 800

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 5, 2014

Human rights application regarding special diet allowance dismissed as abandoned for failure to file materials.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide materials supporting her claims related to diverticular disease and irritable bowel syndrome by a specified date, failing which the claims would be dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the remaining claims were dismissed as abandoned.

Lance v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 799

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 5, 2014

Human rights application regarding special diet allowance dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file materials.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide materials supporting her remaining claim related to chronic constipation, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

Consequently, the remaining claim was dismissed as abandoned.

Kathryn Krome v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2014 HRTO 798

Yola Ventresca

9 cases2009–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 2, 2014

Summary hearing rule upheld as constitutional; racial discrimination application allowed to proceed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent library denied him services because of his race and/or colour on two occasions.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success and whether the older allegation was timely.

The applicant also raised constitutional and procedural fairness challenges to the Tribunal's summary hearing rule (Rule 19A).

The Tribunal dismissed the constitutional and procedural challenges, finding Rule 19A valid and consistent with human rights jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the failure of a staff member to provide a directive could be used as circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found the older incident timely as part of a series of incidents.

The application was allowed to proceed.

Sinclair v. London Public Library, 2014 HRTO 781

Craig Allen

2 cases2007–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 26, 2014

Human rights application dismissed; admission refusal was based on confrontational behaviour, not age or disability.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by withdrawing his acceptance into a welding program because he was 63 years old, wore bifocals, and took Percocet.

The respondents claimed the acceptance was withdrawn due to the applicant's aggressive and bullying behaviour when he confronted them about his admission.

The Tribunal found that while the respondents had concerns about the applicant's age and medication, they had not withdrawn his acceptance prior to his attendance at the institute.

The Tribunal concluded that the acceptance was ultimately withdrawn because of the applicant's confrontational demeanour, and dismissed the application.

Tom Jackson v. Windsor Welding Institute, 2014 HRTO 748

Tribunal removes former employer as respondent where applicant made no allegations against it.

Thames Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) requested to be removed as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant originally named Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority (MLEMSA) as the sole respondent, alleging discrimination when she was not offered employment after MLEMSA took over services from TEMS.

MLEMSA added the union as a respondent, and the union subsequently added TEMS.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not raised any allegations against TEMS that could support a finding of a Code violation.

The request was granted and TEMS was removed as a respondent.

Kinney v. Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority, 2014 HRTO 715

Carolyn Dunlop

4 cases2014–2019

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 16, 2014

Tribunal strikes portions of human rights application relating to prior employment covered by a settlement release.

The respondents requested an interim order striking paragraphs 7-30 of the Application, which detailed events during the applicant's prior employment that were subject to a full and final release.

The current Application alleged discrimination in the provision of services regarding the scheduling of an assessment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the employment history was not relevant to the current service-related accommodation claim and that striking the paragraphs was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

Jackie Gonder v. Peterborough Regional Health Center, 2014 HRTO 700

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of related CHRC complaint regarding televised council meeting captioning.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her based on disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the CHRC proceeding.

As neither party opposed the deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application due to overlapping factual and legal issues.

Beverley Dooley v. The Town of Whitby, 2014 HRTO 692

Arend Wakeford

3 cases2012–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of overlapping Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

Due to the overlapping factual and legal issues and the absence of any opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the CHRC complaint.

Kimberley Reid v. The Regional Municipality of Durham, 2014 HRTO 691

Mariso Scotto di Luzio

1 case2014–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to add personal respondents and correct corporate name in human rights application granted.

The applicant requested to add two personal respondents and correct the name of a corporate respondent in her human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, and age.

The respondents did not file a response.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondents because the allegations related to their conduct and they held positions of responsibility.

The Tribunal also granted the request to correct the corporate respondent's name.

Kasun v. Gino’s Pizza Inc., 2014 HRTO 694

Andrew Zabrovsky

34 cases2010–2025

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent CHRC complaint regarding televised council meeting captioning.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her based on disability by failing to provide captioning for televised council meetings.

The applicant also filed a concurrent complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers TV-Durham raising the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the CHRC proceeding.

As the applicant did not oppose deferral and the respondent supported it, the Tribunal deferred the Application due to overlapping factual and legal issues.

Veronica Bickle v. The Town of Ajax, 2014 HRTO 693

Pamela Leiper

10 cases2003–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 13, 2014

Motion to dismiss for delay denied; 2013 T4 statement supported applicant's good faith belief of ongoing employment.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for delay, arguing the applicant's employment was terminated in 2011 or early 2012, more than a year before the December 2013 application.

The applicant maintained she was never terminated and submitted a 2013 T4 statement as proof of ongoing employment.

The Tribunal found that the T4 suggested the applicant was still an employee in 2013, making the application timely.

Alternatively, the Tribunal held that any delay was incurred in good faith due to the T4 issuance, and allowed the application to proceed.

Matuszak v. Regency LTC Operating Limited Partnership, 2014 HRTO 685

Sue Lott

26 cases2009–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 13, 2014

Request to dismiss denied; internal workplace investigation is not a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with through an internal harassment and discrimination complaint process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's union intervenor status, as is standard practice when an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit.

O’Brien v. Kingston (City), 2014 HRTO 678

Steven Rastin

5 cases1997–2014

Anne-Marie Langan

4 cases2012–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 13, 2014

Request to consolidate three human rights applications denied due to distinct factual and legal issues.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be consolidated with two other applications filed by former employees against the same respondents.

The applicant argued that all three applications involved allegations of a poisoned work environment and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and denied the request, finding that the applications raised distinct factual and legal issues, including different grounds of discrimination and separate factual matrices, which outweighed the inconvenience of separate hearings.

Genny Lynn Badour v. Mike Dean’s Super Food Store and Chris Roberts, 2014 HRTO 675

Jo-Anne Pickel

Special diet claim for unintended weight loss 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 previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claim for unintended weight loss.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim regarding unintended weight loss as abandoned.

The remaining claim relates to cardiovascular disease.

Stewart v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 661

Jo-Anne Pickel

Claims regarding unintended weight loss dismissed as abandoned due to complainant's failure 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 for unintended weight loss (anorexia and marasmus/kwashiorkor) by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of those claims.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while noting the claim regarding diabetes remains unaffected.

Abbs v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 659

Jo-Anne Pickel

Claims regarding specific medical conditions dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file supporting 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 for anaemia, emphysema, and malabsorption, 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 the claims regarding hepatic disorder and osteoporosis remain unaffected.

Monteath v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 660

Amy Murakami

15 cases2011–2024

Jo-Anne Pickel

Tribunal denies request to defer human rights application pending judicial review in a separate case.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of a judicial review proceeding in a different case (de Lottinville).

The Tribunal noted its consistent practice of denying requests to defer applications pending the completion of the de Lottinville judicial review in similar circumstances.

Finding no reasons to depart from this practice, the Tribunal denied the respondents' deferral request.

Khan v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 672

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 and submissions in support of her remaining claim regarding mental health by a specified date, 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.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims as abandoned.

Ray v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 669

Jo-Anne Pickel