Jo-Anne Pickel

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

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

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting her remaining claims for food allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities by a specified date, 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 remaining claims were dismissed as abandoned.

Ruth Shmihelsky v. Ontario Human Rights Commission and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2014 HRTO 667

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights claim regarding egg allergy dismissed as abandoned for failure to file supporting materials.

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

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file materials supporting his claim concerning an egg allergy, warning that failure to comply would result in that portion of the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the egg allergy claim as abandoned, while noting the applicant's separate claim regarding cardiovascular disease remains active.

Roger Foster v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 666

Jo-Anne Pickel

Parts of special diet human rights complaint 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 her claims for specific conditions by a set deadline, warning that failure to do so would result in those claims being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to bipolar disorder, food allergies-antibiotics, multiple chemical sensitivities, and pseudo-Cushing's syndrome as abandoned, while preserving her claims regarding milk and wheat allergies.

Marin v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 658

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights claims 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 previously directed the applicant to provide materials supporting his claims for digestive problems, insomnia, panic attacks, and PTSD, 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 these claims as abandoned and directed the parties to provide an update on the remaining claim regarding hepatitis C.

Michel Perron v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2014 HRTO 665

Jo-Anne Pickel

Special diet allowance claims for specific medical conditions dismissed as abandoned due to 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 his claims for several specific medical conditions, warning that failure to do so would result in those claims being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to those specific conditions as abandoned, while noting the claim regarding cardiovascular disease remains unaffected.

Pennell v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 664

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights claims regarding schizophrenia dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file required materials.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability in the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims regarding unintended weight loss and schizophrenia 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 Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while preserving the complainant's claim regarding osteoporosis.

Lockwood v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 663

Jo-Anne Pickel

Specific special diet allowance claims 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 complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to those specific conditions as abandoned, while preserving the claim regarding a wheat allergy.

Walker v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 662

Carolyn Johnston

12 cases2011–2015

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 7, 2014

Request to remove corporate respondent dismissed at preliminary stage pending evidence on corporate relationship.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when he failed a driver's examination, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate him.

Respondent Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing Serco Canada Inc. was vicariously liable for the examiner's actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that at this preliminary stage, there was insufficient information about the corporate relationship between the respondents to determine liability, especially given allegations regarding inadequate accommodation policies.

Gonder v. Serco Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 651

Todd Andres

1 case2014–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 6, 2014

Requests for reconsideration of a decision finding language-related discrimination in employment termination dismissed.

Both the applicant and the respondent sought reconsideration of a decision finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant based on his place of origin when it terminated his employment.

The applicant sought to introduce new evidence and claim higher damages, while the respondent argued the adjudicator applied the incorrect legal test, breached procedural fairness, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding neither party established the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

Yongbin Liu v. Everlink Payment Services Inc., 2014 HRTO 641

Request to defer human rights application pending parallel wrongful dismissal civil claim denied.

The corporate respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a civil wrongful dismissal claim filed by the personal respondent against the corporate respondent.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the legal issues in the two proceedings were distinct and there was no significant risk of inconsistent decisions of fact or law.

Belinda Karahalios v. mdBriefcase Inc. and Danny Weill, 2014 HRTO 643

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 1, 2014

Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to establish grounds under Rule 26.5.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing 22 applications he filed against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applications challenged the Tribunal's processing of his previous 58 applications and were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure that would warrant reconsidering the decision.

Roy v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 623

Lisa Constantine

8 cases2011–2026

Kate MacNeill-Keller

2 cases2014–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 30, 2014

Interim remedy and broad amendments denied; dismissal request deferred pending proof of amended civil claim.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the calculation of his Long Term Disability benefits.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an interim remedy of compensation for constructive dismissal, noting the Tribunal does not award such compensation and it would be inappropriate to grant a final remedy on an interim basis.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend his Application to include a 56-page mediation brief containing unrelated allegations, but allowed him to amend the remedy sought.

Finally, the Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the Application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, directing the applicant to file his Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days to demonstrate he had removed his request for a human rights remedy from his concurrent civil action.

MacPherson v. Leon’s Furniture Limited, 2014 HRTO 605

Jo-Ann Seamon

28 cases2009–2023

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 29, 2014

Tribunal has jurisdiction to award unrequested human rights damages; awards $5,000 for injury to dignity.

Following a finding that the applicant's shoulder injury was a factor in her termination, the Tribunal requested written submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to award monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, as the applicant had not requested it in her application.

The Tribunal held that under section 45.2 of the Human Rights Code, it has broad remedial discretion to award unrequested monetary compensation to fulfill the Code's remedial purposes.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant lost wages and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Lisa Trites v. New Directions Aromatics Inc., 2014 HRTO 601

Brenda Culbert

32 cases2011–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 28, 2014

Motion to amend application to add personal respondent and change monetary remedy granted.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add the President of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent and to change the monetary remedy sought.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors, finding that the proposed personal respondent's conduct was central to the allegations of age discrimination and that the corporate respondent's insolvency raised concerns about its ability to remedy any Code infringement.

The Tribunal granted both requests to amend the application.

Torcato v. Fulton Engineered Specialties Inc., 2014 HRTO 590

Lucy Siraco

35 cases2000–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioApr 28, 2014

Personal respondents removed on consent; request for summary hearing to strike allegations denied.

The respondent requested the removal of two personal respondents and a summary hearing to strike allegations of reprisal and discrimination by association.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents on consent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that the disputed facts regarding discrimination by association required a full hearing on the merits.

Donald Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 HRTO 593

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to dismiss human rights complaint denied, but complaint deferred pending Social Benefits Tribunal outcome.

The respondent requested that the human rights complaint regarding the special diet allowance be dismissed because the complainant had a pending claim before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) raising the same issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, citing section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, which requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

However, the Tribunal ordered that the complaint be deferred pending the outcome of the SBT proceeding.

Glenn Hedrich v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 576

Jo-Anne Pickel

Reconsideration request dismissed; disagreement with factual findings and active adjudication approach not grounds for reconsideration.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a decision finding that the applicant's disability was a factor in her termination.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of credibility, was biased, and applied the wrong standard of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that disagreement with factual findings is not a ground for reconsideration and that the Tribunal's active adjudication approach was appropriate and permitted under the Human Rights Code.

Trites v. New Directions Aromatics Inc., 2014 HRTO 582

Jodi Gallagher Healey

2 cases2013–2014

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as employer's telecommunications installation operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against his employer, a company providing exclusive installation and service work for Rogers Cable Communications Inc. The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's services are an integral part of Rogers' federally-regulated telecommunications undertaking.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application, directing the applicant to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Daniel Aklilu v. Wirecomm Systems (2008) Inc., 2014 HRTO 577

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to dismiss human rights complaint denied without hearing, but complaint deferred pending concurrent SBT proceeding.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the special diet allowance, arguing that the complainant had filed claims before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) raising the same issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss without a hearing pursuant to section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, but ordered that the complaint be deferred pending the outcome of the SBT proceeding.

Marwan El Jamal v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2014 HRTO 575

Carolyn Dunlop

4 cases2014–2019

Jo-Anne Pickel