Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 29, 2013

Motion to dismiss for late filing denied; witness not permitted to testify by affidavit.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application or excluding the applicant's materials due to late filing, and preventing a witness from testifying by affidavit.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss or exclude materials, finding the applicant complied with the 7-day deadline set in a previous Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal refused to allow the witness to testify by affidavit, noting that unavailability during a specific month is not an exceptional circumstance, but directed the applicant to advise if the witness could testify by telephone.

Harper v. Hospital for Sick Children, 2013 HRTO 1982

Sylvia Tint

2 cases2012–2013

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 28, 2013

Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a Chinese-Canadian software developer, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race.

He claimed that his Iranian-Canadian manager and senior colleague unfairly criticized his work performance, yelled at him, and denied him salary increases because he was not Iranian-Canadian.

The Tribunal found that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, primarily related to the applicant's excessive personal internet use and performance issues.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that race was a factor in the employer's conduct and dismissed the application.

Rong v. Gold Line Telemanagement Inc., 2013 HRTO 1975

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 12, 2013

Request for reconsideration of human rights application dismissal denied for failing to meet Rule 26.5 criteria.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator ignored submissions and improperly endorsed unlimited surveillance of workers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as she raised no new evidence, demonstrated no conflict with established jurisprudence, and failed to show other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Malek v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2013 HRTO 1870

Human rights application dismissed as grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer in denying a transfer, and by his union in its representation of him.

The application had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration, which ultimately dismissed his grievances for insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate due to delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the application against the employer must be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance, and raising a new ground of racial discrimination would be an abuse of process.

The application against the union was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Lee Thompson v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2013 HRTO 1847

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 1, 2013

Reconsideration request dismissed as the underlying interim decision was not a final decision.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the central issues in the complaint, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Anne Marsden v. Board of Directors of the Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41 and The Active Group, 2013 HRTO 1844

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 23, 2013

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to provide accurate respondent information.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly failed to provide accurate information regarding the respondents, naming various organizations and an officer without a last name.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm the organizational respondents and provide the officer's full name, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to provide the required information within the specified time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Ibsa Hassan v. Toronto Police Service, 2013 HRTO 1785

Mindy Noble

43 cases2010–2026

Bernie Romano

51 cases2002–2025

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 23, 2013

Tribunal removed personal respondents on consent and directed parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her employer and several members of its management team.

Following a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the personal respondents, the applicant consented to removing all personal respondents except one.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the agreed-upon personal respondents and directed the parties to mediation.

Debra Lalonde-MacDonald v. Hockley Valley Resort Limited and Deepak Bathia, 2013 HRTO 1787

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

Edison v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1749

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw their human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

Santodonato v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1752

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

Ibbotson v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1751

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant withdrew her human rights complaint with leave of the Tribunal.

Hartwick v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1750

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 15, 2013

Reconsideration of summary dismissal denied as applicant failed to establish grounds under Rule 26.5.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She alleged the respondents discriminated against her based on race and mental health.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish any criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to justify reconsideration, noting she merely repeated arguments from the initial hearing and had a full opportunity to present her case despite a scheduling conflict with her work.

M.D. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 HRTO 1733

Sarah Graves

3 cases2012–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 11, 2013

Untimely human rights allegations dismissed for delay; timely allegations proceed as prior ESA claim dealt with distinct issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, disability, and association, as well as reprisal, spanning a two-and-a-half-year period.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay and under s. 45.1 of the Code due to a prior Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations occurring more than one year before the application was filed, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations and there was no good faith reason for the delay.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining timely allegations under s. 45.1, as the ESA proceeding dealt with distinct issues and did not address the human rights allegations.

Donna Kasubeck v. General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, 2013 HRTO 1722

Firdaus Walele

8 cases2010–2013

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 11, 2013

Tribunal grants respondent's request to amend pleadings and respond to new allegations.

The respondent condominium corporation filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its amended Response to correct factual inaccuracies regarding a fitness room door, to amend the style of cause, and to respond to new allegations raised by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and to respond to the new allegations, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The request to amend the style of cause was deferred to the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal also extended the applicant's deadline to file a Reply to the co-respondent's Response.

Marsden v. Board of Directors of the Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41, 2013 HRTO 1727

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 10, 2013

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

Draper v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1712

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw their human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

Crocker v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1622

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

Yurke v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1626

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

Wray v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1625

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

Hyman v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2013 HRTO 1624

Jo-Anne Pickel