Jo-Anne Pickel

In Private Practice2 cases2008–2017

Production request granted in part for relevant documents; adjournment denied absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for production of 21 categories of documents and requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal granted the production request in part, ordering only the disclosure of information regarding a taxi driver and video recordings relevant to the narrow remaining issues of accommodation during a February 2014 interview.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation or establish exceptional circumstances to justify rescheduling the hearing.

Solomon Fagan v. Toronto Transit Commission and Wheel-Trans, 2017 HRTO 1143

Gina Saccoccio Brannan

Jo-Anne Pickel

Reconsideration of interim production order largely denied; hearing adjourned due to respondent's medical condition.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Interim Decision regarding document production and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found that the Interim Decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1, but exercised its discretion under Rule 26.9 to order a third party to produce a call log.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider its decision denying production of PC-16 forms.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request due to the exceptional circumstances of a respondent's recent major surgery and a witness's religious observance.

Sprague v. Yufest, 2017 HRTO 1147

Jo-Anne Pickel

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

Four applicants filed human rights applications against the respondent.

Shortly before the hearing, one applicant advised she intended to withdraw her application due to work-related reasons but failed to file the required withdrawal form.

She did not attend the first two days of the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed her application as abandoned.

Miller v. InterCounty Tennis Association, 2017 HRTO 1141

Christopher Stienburg

15 cases2016–2026

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to defer human rights application denied because the applicant had not yet commenced her intended civil claim.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer consideration of her human rights application on the basis that she intended to file a civil claim in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal denied the request for deferral because the applicant had not yet commenced her civil claim.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could renew her request if and when she commenced the civil claim, and reminded her of section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code regarding concurrent proceedings.

Burch v. Victim Services of Durham Region, 2017 HRTO 1145

Request to amend public interest remedy in human rights application granted.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the public interest remedy sought in his human rights application alleging racial profiling.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the systemic remedy sought was inappropriate based on the allegations and would add unnecessary length and complexity.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that requests to amend remedies are regularly granted up to the date of the hearing, and the respondent could make submissions on the appropriateness of the remedies at the hearing.

J.M. v. Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, 2017 HRTO 1136

Swarna Perinparajah

4 cases2017–2023

Nadia Lambek

5 cases2016–2017

Amandi Esonwanne

21 cases2009–2023

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2017

Tribunal dismisses several reprisal and improper investigation allegations due to Police Services Act statutory privilege.

The respondents requested the mid-hearing dismissal of several of the applicant's allegations of improper investigation and reprisal on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to the Professional Standards Unit's investigation because assessing them would require admitting evidence protected by statutory privilege and confidentiality under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations regarding the handling of the applicant's WSIB file and a denied promotion that occurred before she filed her human rights complaint.

Other allegations were permitted to proceed as they required a full evidentiary record.

Heather McWilliam v. Toronto Police Services Board and Angelo Costa, 2017 HRTO 1130

Marisa Scotto di Luzio

14 cases2013–2025

Jesse Kugler

9 cases2010–2017

Christopher Lane

1 case2017–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Tribunal dismissed union's jurisdictional objections and removed proposed respondents against whom no allegations were made.

The applicant, a boilermaker with a prescription for medical marijuana, alleged discrimination by his union regarding drug testing policies and hiring hall dispatch.

The union respondents raised jurisdictional objections, arguing the matter fell under federal or OLRB jurisdiction, and sought to add two entities as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the jurisdictional objections, finding the core allegations related to human rights violations in Ontario.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to remove the two proposed respondents, as the applicant made no allegations against them and the Code does not permit third-party claims.

Bociurko v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, 2017 HRTO 1123

Jo-Anne Pickel

Anonymization request denied; applicant failed to establish exceptional privacy concerns outweighing open hearing principle.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order to anonymize his identity due to the sensitive nature of his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional conditions of sensitivity or privacy that would outweigh the public interest in a transparent human rights process.

The Tribunal also deferred the applicant's request for a teleconference hearing pending the respondent's position.

Adam Kusinski v. Marvin Basar Pharmacy Ltd., 2017 HRTO 1127

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Afshin Rahbar v. Killam Properties Inc., 2017 HRTO 1126

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as the narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination by the respondent.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Kathryn Kissinger v. Human Resources Professionals Association, 2017 HRTO 1124

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period without good faith reasons for the delay.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Patsy Wu v. Hamco Heating and Cooling Ltd., 2017 HRTO 1119

Dylan McGuinty

1 case2017–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Applicant's unopposed request to amend human rights application to correct overzealous advocacy granted.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to clarify her pleadings and correct statements resulting from overzealous advocacy.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendments to ensure accuracy in the pleadings, striking two paragraphs and clarifying the definition of 'frog marching' in the application.

Ting (Cecilia) Zhang v. Nordstrom Canada Retail Inc., 2017 HRTO 1125

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 29, 2017

Human rights application against Tribunal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a Vice Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reprised against him by denying his request for reconsideration in a previous decision.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the doctrine of adjudicative immunity, which protects quasi-judicial decision-makers from legal proceedings based on their adjudicative actions.

Kasirye Kabala v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 HRTO 1116

Michael Krylov

14 cases2000–2023

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 28, 2017

Adjournment request denied despite respondent's consent; failure to gather evidence timely is not an exceptional circumstance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain additional evidence, with the consent of the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, emphasizing that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, even when all parties consent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to gather necessary evidence in a timely manner did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Navodiya v. No Frills #3912, 2017 HRTO 1108

Christian Paquette

8 cases2010–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 22, 2017

Request to amend human rights application to add creed discrimination allegation granted unopposed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination based on creed, specifically regarding a refusal of time off for Ramadan.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the allegation timely and that it would not substantially lengthen the hearing.

Touria Aziz v. Les Centres d’Accueil Héritage, 2017 HRTO 1093

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 21, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned for failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure directions.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to make the required pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

When neither party responded to the direction, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Ruben Alijohn v. Lucy Wang, 2017 HRTO 1089

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 16, 2017

Request to amend human rights application to add a new allegation of discrimination granted.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a new incident of alleged discrimination or reprisal that occurred after the application was filed.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal considered the nature, reasons, timing, and prejudice of the proposed amendment, and granted the request to amend the application.

Gordon v. Kensington Gardens, 2017 HRTO 1068

Paul Veugelers

2 cases2017–2023

Kristopher Stone

5 cases2017–2026

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 15, 2017

Request to dismiss human rights application denied as WSIB and MOL proceedings did not address discrimination.

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 had been dealt with by a WSIB claim and a Ministry of Labour complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB claim only addressed traumatic mental stress policy and the Ministry of Labour complaint was not filed by the applicant and dealt with distinct issues.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to include additional allegations and remedies.

Manza v. Cosmo Music Company Ltd., 2017 HRTO 1064

David Foster

6 cases2012–2022

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 15, 2017

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of grievance arbitration dealing with the same medical documentation policy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the respondent's medical documentation policy and her treatment during the grievance process.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, which created a risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal also noted it was unclear whether the alleged mistreatment was linked to the applicant's disability.

Overy v. Bluewater Health, 2017 HRTO 1058

Elizabeth Winter

3 cases2016–2021

Jo-Anne Pickel