Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as untimely because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent service provider more than a year after the incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that his learning disability and reliance on the respondent for paperwork assistance caused the delay.

The Tribunal found this explanation unreasonable given the one-year limitation period, concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith, and dismissed the application as untimely.

Whyte v. March of Dimes Canada - Sudbury Office, 2017 HRTO 1052

Cheryl Pooran

2 cases2015–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Not Practising Law - Employed4 cases2016–2017

Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discriminatory discipline.

The applicant also filed grievances with his union regarding the same issues, which were referred to arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding considerable overlap between the proceedings and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

Doganay v. Community Living Toronto, 2017 HRTO 1050

Anna Kalinichenko

Jo-Anne Pickel

Summary hearing motion to dismiss human rights application denied; potential breach regarding interview questions requires full hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin when the respondents decided not to hire him after an interview.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, noting that the respondents' owner asked the applicant where he was from during the interview, which could potentially breach section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents' motion to dismiss was denied, and the application was allowed to continue.

Barsoum v. Oakport Media Group Inc., 2017 HRTO 1054

Giuseppi Agostino

1 case2017–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Production request denied in advance of summary hearing; amendment request deferred.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of materials relating to the hiring process in advance of a summary hearing, and requesting permission to amend his Application.

The Tribunal denied the production request, noting that summary hearings do not involve the hearing of evidence and the applicant can make submissions about the materials he would seek to have produced at the summary hearing itself.

The request to amend the Application was deferred to be dealt with at the summary hearing.

Tesfaye Tola v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2017 HRTO 1051

Christopher Karpacz

1 case2017–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 10, 2017

Respondent's request to add security companies as respondents denied; applicant determines who to name.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add two security companies as potential parties to the human rights application.

The applicant alleged he was assaulted by security guards employed by these companies while at the respondent's store.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add them as respondents, noting that the applicant determines who to name as a respondent and there is no third-party claim process under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the companies could file a Request to Intervene if they wished to participate.

Navodiya v. No Frills #3912, 2017 HRTO 1032

Christopher Cowan

1 case2017–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 10, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability prior to his termination.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release agreeing not to commence any Code complaints.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal request, warning that failure to do so could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Basan v. ERCO Worldwide, 2017 HRTO 1025

Monique Jilesen

2 cases2016–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 8, 2017

Request to intervene in human rights application regarding Cleveland Indians team name and logo denied.

The proposed intervenor filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the use of the Cleveland Indians team name and logo.

The proposed intervenor claimed to have knowledge of international human rights instruments and argued the Tribunal was violating his human rights by dealing with the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the proposed intervenor had no special contribution to make and would not provide assistance that the respondents would not already provide.

Cardinal v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2017 HRTO 1015

Yuce Baykara

In Private Practice6 cases2017–2021

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 8, 2017

Landlord's request for reconsideration of decision finding creed-based discrimination against tenants denied.

The respondent landlord requested a reconsideration of a previous HRTO decision that found he discriminated against the applicant tenants based on creed.

The respondent argued that an email from his wife constituted new evidence, that the denial of an adjournment breached procedural fairness, and that the adjudicator misapplied the law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the email could have been obtained earlier, the adjournment denial was consistent with Tribunal practice, and the respondent was improperly attempting to reargue his case.

Madkour v. Alabi, 2017 HRTO 1017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 3, 2017

Human rights applications against judicial officer, Crown attorney, and politicians dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed three applications alleging discrimination based on disability against a Justice of the Peace, an Assistant Crown Attorney, the Attorney General, and an MPP, all relating to his complaints against the WSIB.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding it plain and obvious they fell outside its jurisdiction due to judicial immunity, the lack of a service relationship with opposing counsel, and the failure to allege acts of discrimination linked to disability regarding the politicians' failure to respond to his letters.

Lozier v. Miskokon, 2017 HRTO 996

Marie Abraham

2 cases2017–2021

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 2, 2017

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

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend or provide an explanation for his absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's history of filing and abandoning multiple applications and dismissed the current application as abandoned, warning that future similar conduct could result in the applicant being declared a vexatious litigant.

Fuller v. Saftic, 2017 HRTO 987

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 2, 2017

Human rights application stayed due to respondent's bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and seeking monetary relief.

The respondent corporation subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that human rights proceedings seeking monetary remedies are claims provable in bankruptcy and are therefore subject to the statutory stay of proceedings under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was stayed against the respondent, and the applicant was directed to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay.

Schober v. Artistic Home Renovations Ltd., 2017 HRTO 988

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 28, 2017

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's update request.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the determination of the applicant's claim under a Re-Amended Plan of Compromise and Arrangement.

The Tribunal requested an update from the applicant by a specified deadline, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

Diana Carrol v. Laura Canada and Donald Desabrais, 2017 HRTO 964

Don Pyper

2 cases2016–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Ministry of the Attorney General granted intervenor status regarding the Guide Dog Benefit issue.

The applicant alleged disability discrimination and reprisal against the respondent for denying her the Guide Dog Benefit under Ontario Works legislation.

The Ministry of the Attorney General requested to intervene on the Guide Dog Benefit issue.

The Tribunal applied the factors for intervention under Rule 11 and granted the Ministry's request, finding that the Ministry had a significant interest and special contribution to make, and that the intervention would not unduly delay the summary hearing.

Shelley Leach v. County of Renfrew Ontario Works, 2017 HRTO 955

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application stayed due to respondent's assignment into bankruptcy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal received notice that the respondent had made an assignment into bankruptcy.

Pursuant to section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Tribunal ordered that the application be stayed against the respondent.

The applicant was given 14 days to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in court to lift the stay.

Victoria Korosec v. 1039480 Ontario Inc. o/a The Salon, 2017 HRTO 958

Jo-Anne Pickel

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to hospital care based on disability.

The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to the Request for Summary Hearing.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Zahra Imani v. St. Michael's Hospital, 2017 HRTO 950

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over ODSP benefit denial.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination after the Ontario Disability Support Program discontinued her benefits following the transfer of her condominium to her son.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that it lacks jurisdiction to review benefit denials absent allegations connecting the conduct to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Finding it plain and obvious that the application did not engage the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

Ekaterina Matachniouk v. Ontario Disability Support Program, 2017 HRTO 951

Applicant's broad document production request regarding fraudulent ticket purchases denied as disproportionate.

The applicant in a disability discrimination case requested wide-ranging production of documents from the respondents regarding complaints and lawsuits about fraudulent purchases of accessible seating tickets.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it disproportionate to the one-day hearing scheduled and noting that the information could be elicited through cross-examination.

Sprague v. Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership dba Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club, 2017 HRTO 952

Greg Bullen

47 cases2009–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 26, 2017

Deferred human rights application reactivated following WSIAT decision, pending preliminary hearing on section 45.1 dismissal.

The applicant requested to reactivate his deferred human rights application after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) issued its decision.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by the WSIAT and fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate but ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Stephen Flanagan v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2017 HRTO 944

Olanyi Parsons

In Private Practice29 cases2011–2025

Michael Comartin

11 cases2011–2025

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 25, 2017

Request to amend human rights application granted in part to add sexual orientation ground and particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and gender identity.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant retained counsel and sought to amend her application to replace the ground of gender identity with sexual orientation, and to add new allegations and particulars.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, allowing the addition of the sexual orientation ground as it was already referenced in the original application.

The Tribunal also permitted the addition of particulars and replies to the respondent's allegations that would not cause significant prejudice, but denied the addition of entirely new allegations given the late stage of the proceedings.

Shatrice Williams v. OTG Management YYZ, LLC, 2017 HRTO 941

Jo-Anne Pickel