Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 14, 2016

Human rights application re-activated after substantive conclusion of related WSIAT appeal.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIAT proceeding.

The WSIAT allowed the applicant's appeal regarding his workplace injury, though the precise calculation of benefits remained pending.

The respondents opposed re-activation until the benefits were calculated and also requested production of the WSIAT hearing documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding the substantive WSIAT issues had concluded, eliminating the risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' document production request as premature and ordered the applicant to provide information regarding his bankruptcy status.

Istvan Kovarcsik v. Perpetual Properties Limited, Milton Winberg and Phillip Khetani, 2016 HRTO 1211

Jo-Anne Pickel

Respondent deemed to have accepted allegations and waived participation rights after failing to file a Response.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of not responding.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure and deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant was directed to provide further clarification regarding the alleged breach and the remedy sought.

Roth v. Cassin, 2016 HRTO 1202

Jo-Anne Pickel

Practising Law - Employed3 cases2014–2018

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Peel Regional Police, Windsor Police Services, and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the bank on the basis of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that banking falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application against Toronto-Dominion Bank was dismissed, while the application against the other respondents was allowed to proceed.

Koroma v. Peel Regional Police, 2016 HRTO 1199

Chelsea Rasmussen

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending resolution of related Small Claims Court action regarding disability benefits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to the denial of short-term disability benefits, family status accommodation, and creed.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application because the applicant had previously commenced a Small Claims Court action for breach of contract regarding the same denial of disability benefits.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the overlap in factual and legal issues and the more advanced stage of the civil proceeding weighed in favour of deferring the human rights application to avoid inconsistent decisions.

Alkenbrack v. Lowe’s Canada, 2016 HRTO 1198

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 7, 2016

Reconsideration denied; political beliefs do not constitute a creed under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a candidate for the 'None of the Above Party of Ontario', sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

He had alleged discrimination based on creed after being excluded from two candidate debates.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application, finding that political beliefs do not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Charter claims.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found no new facts, errors of law, or conflict with established jurisprudence to justify overturning the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Vezina v. Elections Ontario, 2016 HRTO 1176

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to dismiss human rights application denied as applicant was not a party to prior LTB proceeding.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging racial harassment be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with in a prior Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) proceeding.

The LTB proceeding was initiated by the respondent's landlords to terminate his tenancy based on complaints, including one from the applicant superintendent.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the applicant was not a party to the LTB proceeding and the LTB did not address the issue of racial harassment or any other Code grounds.

Carabineiro v. Bracey, 2016 HRTO 1158

K.C. Wysynski

11 cases2014–2018

Jo-Anne Pickel

In Private Practice4 cases2016–2024

Human rights application dismissed because the respondent inter-provincial transportation company falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engages in regular and continuous transportation of goods beyond provincial boundaries, placing its operations under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Antinello v. Cole Carriers Corp., 2016 HRTO 1155

Thomas McRae

Jo-Anne Pickel

Not Practising Law - Employed260 cases2007–2026

Human rights application dismissed because interprovincial shipping company falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, an interprovincial and international bulk shipping company.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because its operations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act rather than the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Durant v. Rand Logistics o/a Lower Lakes Towing Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1152

Peter Dailleboust

Jo-Anne Pickel

In Private Practice6 cases2012–2016

Human rights applications dismissed as abuse of process due to prior full and final settlement.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust termination by his former employer.

Prior to filing the applications, the applicant and his union had signed a full and final settlement and release regarding a grievance over his termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applications as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the release applied to the allegations in the applications and rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was signed under duress or was unconscionable.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

Iad Abdul-Rahman v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2016 HRTO 1151

Deferral of human rights application denied where applicant did not consent to union grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her supervisor and the school board.

The personal respondent and the union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of related grievances filed by the union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating she did not consent to or have knowledge of the grievance filed on her behalf.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate to defer the application for a grievance the applicant did not initiate or consent to.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

Allen v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1149

Samantha Seabrook

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to nullify human rights settlement denied; applicant failed to prove incapacity or duress.

The applicant sought to nullify a settlement agreement reached during a Tribunal mediation, arguing he did not understand what he was signing due to cognitive disabilities and that the mediator pressured him into signing.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to set aside a settlement.

The evidence showed the applicant understood the key terms and the consequences of signing, and the pressure experienced during mediation did not amount to duress.

The request to nullify the settlement was denied.

Alexander v. Iron Mountain Incorporated, 2016 HRTO 1148

Jo-Anne Pickel

Adjournment request denied as potential future scheduling conflict does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing a potential scheduling conflict with a pending civil lawsuit against the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the mere possibility of a future scheduling conflict did not constitute exceptional circumstances required to grant an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

Adams v. SNC - Lavalin Operations and Maintenance Inc., 2016 HRTO 1147

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with disclosure directions.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to disclose documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to provide the required materials and did not respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

Tanya Francis v. Gap (Canada) Inc., 2016 HRTO 1145

Geoff Jeffery

2 cases2009–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 23, 2016

Human rights application dismissed; gender expression does not protect cisgender men acting in stereotypically male ways.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and gender expression, as well as reprisal, after the respondent walk-in clinic denied him access to his medical records, prohibited him from video recording staff, and banned him from the clinic.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the clinic's actions to the applicant's disability, determined that the ground of gender expression does not protect cisgender men expressing themselves in stereotypically male ways, and concluded that filing a privacy complaint is not a protected right under the Human Rights Code.

Curtis Barksey v. Four Corners Medical Walk In Clinic/Northwood Medical Clinics Inc., 2016 HRTO 1116

Daniell Bartley

1 case2016–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

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, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Tony Delville v. City of Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1097

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request for reconsideration dismissed as the challenged interim decision was not a final decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied a request to amend the application.

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

Anton Bonnici on behalf of Emy Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc., 2016 HRTO 1094

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to file documents, witness lists, and summaries in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to file the required materials and did not respond to two Case Assessment Directions, which warned that the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

Si v. London Health Sciences Centre, 2016 HRTO 1038

Paul Hosack

6 cases1999–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior WSIB and ESA matters did not address discrimination.

The respondent 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 the WSIB's closure of the applicant's work transition plan and an Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding termination and severance pay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB's administrative closure was not a 'proceeding' and did not address the discrimination allegations, and that the ESA decision dealt only with statutory pay entitlements, not the human rights claims.

Da Silva v. Scotlynn Investments Inc., 2016 HRTO 1037

Robert Edwards

20 cases2001–2022

Jo-Anne Pickel

Practising Law - Employed20 cases2005–2017

Adjournment request denied; lack of preparation is not an extraordinary circumstance.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he needed more time to gather information for his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances and that a party's lack of preparation does not meet this threshold.

The Tribunal also issued directions for pre-hearing disclosure.

Gale v. Thunder Bay Police Service, 2016 HRTO 1031

Patricia Matusiak

Jo-Anne Pickel

Employment and Labour Law

Respondent granted access to applicant's internal medical file to prepare response to discrimination application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (colourblindness).

The respondent requested an interim order for access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file, arguing it was necessary to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that while the file is protected personal health information, access is required for the respondent to defend the application.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent a 35-day extension of time to file its Response.

Yahya Gulma v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2016 HRTO 1023

Affected Party

Christine DaviesCounsel
1 appearance

Applicant

Donald WilliamsSelf-represented
2 appearances
Helene GodinSelf-represented
1 appearance
Suzanne HunchukSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gang RongSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gregory VezinaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marie-Paule Driggs JerezSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ade OlumideSelf-represented
1 appearance
John WoodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Yvonne SookdeoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Constantine BassisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Allen Christopher RosarioSelf-represented
1 appearance
Laura BurchSelf-represented
1 appearance
A.B.Self-represented
1 appearance
John GallagherSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lee ThompsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marcia Marla ThomasSelf-represented
1 appearance
Prakash MurugesanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Allison ArmstrongSelf-represented
1 appearance
Shelley LeachSelf-represented
1 appearance
Everton HayeSelf-represented
1 appearance

Counsel

Lucy SiracoCounsel
1 appearance
Yuce BaykaraCounsel
1 appearance
Jason TamCounsel
1 appearance
Christopher StienburgCounsel
1 appearance
Domenic SeverinoCounsel
1 appearance
Daniel GuttmanCounsel
1 appearance
Stephanie YoungCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Applicant

Margaret ParsonsCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

Alix HerberCounsel
1 appearance

for 0825859 B.C. Ltd (d.b.a. Four Seasons Hotel Toronto)

Jeremy HannCounsel
1 appearance

for 1900119 Ontario Inc. o/a The Augusta House and 1892499 Ontario o/a The Pheasant Plucker

Jasmina Mrkalj-SkellyCounsel
1 appearance

for A-1 Personnel Resources Inc.

Christina BorgesAgent
1 appearance

for Andorra Building Maintenance Ltd.

Frida De PazAgent
1 appearance

for Black & MacDonald Limited, Net Electric Inc., Plan Group Inc. and The Roberts Group Inc.

Scott G. ThompsonCounsel
1 appearance

for Chrysler Canada Inc., Rick Marshall and Dave Wallace

Christopher DunnCounsel
1 appearance

for Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Limited Partnership

Jonathan LisusCounsel
1 appearance

for Corporation of the Municipality of Penetanguishene

Holly BryceCounsel
1 appearance

for Ecuhome Corporation, Jacqueline Beckford, Barry Espin, Sally Murphy, Bruse Sexsmith

Gordon WoodCounsel
1 appearance

for Family Chiropractic Centre and Dr. Scott Huehn

Wade PoziomkaCounsel
1 appearance

for Fera Zubaidy

Fera ZubaidySelf-represented
1 appearance

for First Canada ULC

Mathias LinkCounsel
1 appearance

for Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41

K.C. WysynskiCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Attorney General (Court Services Division)

Connie VernonCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services

Marnie CorboldCounsel
1 appearance

for herself

Gabriela Olguin de CoptoSelf-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Harry FineSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Hudson Bay Company, Owen Baker, and Bryan Marville

William AndersonCounsel
1 appearance

for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 303 and Peter Wall

Ron LebiCounsel
1 appearance

for Kenneth Swan and Kenneth P. Swan Arbitration Ltd.

David C. MooreCounsel
1 appearance

for KPMG Inc., Court Appointed Monitor

Dev CoossaAgent
1 appearance
Maxime CodereAgent
1 appearance

for Leon Rideout

Piper HendersonCounsel
1 appearance

for Loblaws Inc.

Misha WilsonCounsel
1 appearance

for Luxottica Retail Canada Inc. c.o.b. as LensCrafters

Cherrine ChowCounsel
1 appearance

for Major League Baseball

Markus KoehnenCounsel
1 appearance

for Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority

Stephanie N. JeronimoCounsel
1 appearance

for Midland Service Ontario Centre, Corporation of the Municipality of Midland, and HGR Graham Partners LLP

Andrew MaeCounsel
1 appearance

for Nadine Dobro, Catherine Lyons, Kasha McDougall, Melissa Maya, Jessica Wake and Aldene Thomas

Glenn ChuCounsel
1 appearance

for Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Richard BlairCounsel
1 appearance

for Paragon Security

Daniel ChodosCounsel
1 appearance
David WhittenCounsel
1 appearance

for Rogers Communications Inc.

Kent ThomsonCounsel
1 appearance

for Terra Nova Transport Ltd.

Heather CameronCounsel
1 appearance

for Thames Emergency Medical Services

Paula RusakCounsel
1 appearance

for The Active Group

Robert DowhanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Parties

Susan CrawfordCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party

Vicky RamsayCounsel
2 appearances
Adrienne LiangCounsel
1 appearance
Helen NowakCounsel
1 appearance
Thom YachninCounsel
1 appearance
Derron VernonUnion representative
1 appearance
Katrina PeddleCounsel
1 appearance
John EvansCounsel
1 appearance
Victoria HannahUnion representative
1 appearance
John GormanUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Affected Person

Adrienne LiangUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Amherstburg Police Association

Jeffrey HewittCounsel
1 appearance

for the Amherstburg Police Service Board

Edward PosliffCounsel
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Anne MarsdenSelf-represented
8 appearances
Christine LundyAgent
8 appearances
Esther del Carmen Mancebo-MunozSelf-represented
6 appearances
Kate HughesCounsel
6 appearances
Brenda CulbertCounsel
6 appearances
Jordan LesterCounsel
5 appearances
Solomon FaganSelf-represented
5 appearances
Nadia LambekCounsel
5 appearances
Prakash MurugesanSelf-represented
5 appearances
Wade PoziomkaCounsel
4 appearances
Donald WilliamsSelf-represented
4 appearances
Cecil NormanAgent
4 appearances
M.D.Self-represented
4 appearances
Clara MathesonCounsel
3 appearances
Jamillah MensahAgent
3 appearances
Dan GonderAgent
3 appearances
Everton HayeSelf-represented
3 appearances
Nicole SimesCounsel
3 appearances
David FreeSelf-represented
3 appearances
Vincent SinclairSelf-represented
3 appearances

for the Applicants

David WrightCounsel
3 appearances
Anton BonniciSelf-represented
2 appearances
Catherine Gleason-MercierCounsel
2 appearances
Mindy NobleCounsel
1 appearance
Roger LoveCounsel
1 appearance
Grace VaccarelliCounsel
1 appearance
Jane LettonCounsel
1 appearance
Cecilia MonaghanSelf-represented
1 appearance
Anton BonniciAgent
1 appearance
Lisa TrianoCounsel
1 appearance
Christine GeneraoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Chris PereraSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Canadian Soccer Association

Joseph ArvayCounsel
2 appearances
Sean HernCounsel
2 appearances
Catherine Boies ParkerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Complainant

Anne MarinSelf-represented
3 appearances
Jason LockwoodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sarah HormuzSelf-represented
1 appearance
Glenn HedrichSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donna SalmSelf-represented
1 appearance
Emanuel NavaSelf-represented
1 appearance
Eric FroudeSelf-represented
1 appearance
Salnave Saint-BonheurSelf-represented
1 appearance
John JacksonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Karen DaweSelf-represented
1 appearance
Terry EdwardsSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jo-Ann MacConnellSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ritva SaundersAgent
1 appearance
Lisa ZukSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donna GlazewskiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Suzanne HunchukSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michael GrahamSelf-represented
1 appearance
Stephen PennellSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the County of Renfrew Ontario Works and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works

Stephen MenardCounsel
1 appearance

for the Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Jérôme ValckeAgent
2 appearances

for the Interested Party

Adrienne LiangCounsel
1 appearance
Brian GreenspanAgent
1 appearance

for the Interested Party, Medisys

Brian GreenspanCounsel
1 appearance

for the International Olympic Committee

Ronald SlaghtCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervener, Office of the Employer Adviser

David BorwickAgent
1 appearance

for the intervenor

Michael GlocknerAgent
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Dean ArdronCounsel
3 appearances
Anne CummingCounsel
2 appearances
Marisa PollockCounsel
1 appearance
Sunil GurmukhCounsel
1 appearance
Alycia ShawCounsel
1 appearance
Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance
Robert WhillansCounsel
1 appearance
Denise WorkunSelf-represented
1 appearance
Danny KastnerCounsel
1 appearance
Adrian JakibchukCounsel
1 appearance
Don PyperCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of Community and Social Services

Yashoda RanganathanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Cycling Association and Cycling Canada Cyclisme

Macdonald AllenCounsel
1 appearance
Albert FormosaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Adrienne LiangCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Intervenor

Daniel AttwellCounsel
1 appearance
Sid KnowlesSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent

Susan McCorquodaleCounsel
2 appearances
Joanna RainbowCounsel
1 appearance
Bryan A. CarrollCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent BFI Constructors Ltd.

Christopher LaneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent Carmen Sacco

Ramon V. AndalCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent Construction Opportunities Development Council Inc.

Anna Maria MoscardelliAgent
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent/Intervenor

Joshua PhillipsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent Sears Canada Inc.

Stephanie WhiteCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondents SimpsonWigle LLP, John M. Wigle and Firdaus H. Walele

Firdaus WaleleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Proposed Respondent The Active Group

Robert W. DowhanCounsel
2 appearances

for the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board

Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
1 appearance
Lynda BordeleauCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent

Dan GuttmanCounsel
5 appearances
Robert CharneyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Daniel GuttmanCounsel
6 appearances
Julie O’DonnellCounsel
5 appearances
Dan GuttmanCounsel
5 appearances
Brandin O’ConnorCounsel
5 appearances
Lucy SiracoCounsel
4 appearances
Chantelle BrysonCounsel
4 appearances
Randy AiCounsel
4 appearances
Matthew DemeoCounsel
3 appearances
Jodi Gallagher HealyCounsel
3 appearances
Robert CharneyCounsel
3 appearances
Scott WilliamsCounsel
3 appearances
Lorenzo LisiCounsel
3 appearances
Yola VentrescaCounsel
3 appearances
Stephanie YoungCounsel
3 appearances
John FieldCounsel
3 appearances
David GourlayCounsel
3 appearances
Leah SimonCounsel
3 appearances
Robert EdwardsCounsel
3 appearances
Adrienne CoutoCounsel
3 appearances
William LemayCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent and Proposed Respondents SimpsonWigle LLP, John M. Wigle and Firdaus H. Walele

Firdaus WaleleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Angelo Costa

Kevin McGivneyCounsel
1 appearance
Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Association des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario

Lise LeducCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens

Lise LeducCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Board of Directors of the Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41

K. C. WysynskiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent CA-DO Mart Limited

Heather CameronCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Electrocoating Ltd.

Jeanine WattCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent CIBC Mortgages Inc.

John FieldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario

Sébastien LorquetCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Controlex Corporation

Jonathan RichardsonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Danny Weill

Suzy KauffmanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Davis Henderson Limited Partnership

Allyson M. FischerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Davis Henderson Limited Partnership by its general partner Davis Henderson G.P. Inc.

Allyson M. FischerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Fédération Internationale de Football Association

Jérôme ValckeAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Gestion Rodaki Inc.

Louise MorelCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Halton Condominium Corporation No. 41

K.C. WysynskiCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Heidi Kessler and Intervenor Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4400

Tim GleasonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent International Olympic Committee

Ronald SlaghtCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Laura Borden

Laura BordenSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Respondent, London Life Insurance Company

Sonya ClarkCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Manna Foods Inc.

Anita LandryCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited

Robert BayneCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent mdBriefcase Inc.

Mark FletcherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ministry of Finance

Pauline KwanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent MS Employment Consultants Ltd.

Jasmin MarcosAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP

Susanne SviergulaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Danny KastnerCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Peter Nguyen

Jean-Pierre UngCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Raheel Irfan

Tyler InksterCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership dba Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club

Arlen SternbergCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc.

Kiel ArdalCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

Michelle O’BonsawinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Amandi EsonwanneCounsel
6 appearances
Angela RaeCounsel
5 appearances
Robert EdwardsCounsel
3 appearances
Lucy SiracoCounsel
3 appearances
Gerald J. GriffithsCounsel
2 appearances
Kerri KitchuraCounsel
2 appearances
Mélissa LacroixCounsel
2 appearances
Rita BairosAgent
2 appearances
Kathryn BirdCounsel
2 appearances
Carolyn DunlopCounsel
2 appearances
Vincent PanettaCounsel
2 appearances
Maria KotsopoulosCounsel
2 appearances
M. Elizabeth KeenanCounsel
2 appearances
Keri WilsonCounsel
2 appearances
Robert AtkinsonCounsel
2 appearances
Christian VernonCounsel
2 appearances
Brent ForemanCounsel
1 appearance
John FieldCounsel
1 appearance
Ben MillardCounsel
1 appearance
Daniel McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Brian Etheridge and Anita Etheridge

Anita EtheridgeAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondents Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and Sehwan Oh

Jacqueline LukshaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Ontario Cycling Association and Cycling Canada Cyclisme

Albert FormosaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent St. Joseph’s Health Centre Toronto

Stephanie YoungCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent St. Michael’s Hospital

Naomi CallaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Teamsters Local 879

Michael KlugCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Active Group

Robert DowhanCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent The Athletic Club (Trainyards) Inc.

Brian MacDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ticketmaster Canada LP

Stuart SvonkinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto District School Board

Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board

Heather CrispCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Union Cycliste Internationale

Nicolas ValticosCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Waterloo Regional Police Services Board

Gary MelansonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Weston Bakeries Ltd.

Kate DeardenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Third Party

Emtiaz BalaCounsel
1 appearance
Nansy GhobrialCounsel
1 appearance

for the Union Cycliste Internationale

Caroline (Nini) JonesCounsel
2 appearances
Jesse EldersCounsel
1 appearance

for the University of Western Ontario

Barry BrownCounsel
1 appearance

for the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Greg BullenCounsel
1 appearance

for the World Anti-Doping Agency

Pamela HrickCounsel
1 appearance
Brian GoverCounsel
1 appearance

for Toronto Police Services Board

Michele BradyCounsel
1 appearance

for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1000A

Elichai ShaffirCounsel
1 appearance

for Yvonne Galley

Harry BlackCounsel
1 appearance

litigation guardian for the Applicant

Ashisha PersaudAgent
1 appearance

Representative

Glynis NicholsonSelf-represented
1 appearance

Respondent

Adrien IafrateCounsel
1 appearance
John AlabiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Landon YoungCounsel
1 appearance
Nini JonesCounsel
1 appearance
Thomas McRaeCounsel
1 appearance
Justin HeimpelCounsel
1 appearance

Respondent Liquor Control Board of Ontario

Justin DiggleCounsel
1 appearance

Respondent Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Richard BlairCounsel
1 appearance

Respondents

Jonathan SchofieldAgent
1 appearance

Self-represented

Zoran BackovicSelf-represented
1 appearance
Donald WilliamsSelf-represented
1 appearance
John GallagherSelf-represented
1 appearance

761

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

12.5

cases/mo

HRTO761(100%)

Decision types

motion

730

trial

/Adjudicator

Jo-Anne Pickel — Adjudicator

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Landlord and Tenant

Health Law

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Jo-Anne Pickel

Adjudicator·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario·Since 2012

761

cases · 6 yrs · HRTO

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 592Adjudicator· 80Vice-chair· 69Adjudicator· 18Vice- Chair· 1Vice-présidente· 1

John Campbell

10 cases2000–2023

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 14, 2016

Human rights application re-activated after substantive conclusion of related WSIAT appeal.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIAT proceeding.

The WSIAT allowed the applicant's appeal regarding his workplace injury, though the precise calculation of benefits remained pending.

The respondents opposed re-activation until the benefits were calculated and also requested production of the WSIAT hearing documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding the substantive WSIAT issues had concluded, eliminating the risk of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' document production request as premature and ordered the applicant to provide information regarding his bankruptcy status.

Istvan Kovarcsik v. Perpetual Properties Limited, Milton Winberg and Phillip Khetani, 2016 HRTO 1211

Jo-Anne Pickel

Respondent deemed to have accepted allegations and waived participation rights after failing to file a Response.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of not responding.

The applicant was directed to provide further clarification regarding the alleged breach and the remedy sought.

Roth v. Cassin, 2016 HRTO 1202

Jo-Anne Pickel

Practising Law - Employed3 cases2014–2018

Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Peel Regional Police, Windsor Police Services, and Toronto-Dominion Bank.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against the bank on the basis of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that banking falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application against Toronto-Dominion Bank was dismissed, while the application against the other respondents was allowed to proceed.

Koroma v. Peel Regional Police, 2016 HRTO 1199

Chelsea Rasmussen

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application deferred pending resolution of related Small Claims Court action regarding disability benefits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to the denial of short-term disability benefits, family status accommodation, and creed.

Alkenbrack v. Lowe’s Canada, 2016 HRTO 1198

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 7, 2016

Reconsideration denied; political beliefs do not constitute a creed under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a candidate for the 'None of the Above Party of Ontario', sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

He had alleged discrimination based on creed after being excluded from two candidate debates.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application, finding that political beliefs do not constitute a 'creed' under the Human Rights Code and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Charter claims.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found no new facts, errors of law, or conflict with established jurisprudence to justify overturning the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Vezina v. Elections Ontario, 2016 HRTO 1176

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to dismiss human rights application denied as applicant was not a party to prior LTB proceeding.

The LTB proceeding was initiated by the respondent's landlords to terminate his tenancy based on complaints, including one from the applicant superintendent.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the applicant was not a party to the LTB proceeding and the LTB did not address the issue of racial harassment or any other Code grounds.

Carabineiro v. Bracey, 2016 HRTO 1158

K.C. Wysynski

11 cases2014–2018

Jo-Anne Pickel

In Private Practice4 cases2016–2024

Human rights application dismissed because the respondent inter-provincial transportation company falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer, an inter-provincial transportation company.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engages in regular and continuous transportation of goods beyond provincial boundaries, placing its operations under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Antinello v. Cole Carriers Corp., 2016 HRTO 1155

Thomas McRae

Jo-Anne Pickel

Not Practising Law - Employed260 cases2007–2026

Human rights application dismissed because interprovincial shipping company falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, an interprovincial and international bulk shipping company.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because its operations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act rather than the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Durant v. Rand Logistics o/a Lower Lakes Towing Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1152

Peter Dailleboust

Jo-Anne Pickel

Not Practising Law1 case2016–2016

Human rights applications dismissed as abuse of process due to prior full and final settlement.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination, harassment, and unjust termination by his former employer.

Prior to filing the applications, the applicant and his union had signed a full and final settlement and release regarding a grievance over his termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applications as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the release applied to the allegations in the applications and rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was signed under duress or was unconscionable.

The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.

Iad Abdul-Rahman v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry), 2016 HRTO 1151

Tim Gleason

115 cases2000–2026

George Brown

Andrew Zabrovsky

34 cases2010–2025

Jo-Anne Pickel

In Private Practice6 cases2012–2016

Deferral of human rights application denied where applicant did not consent to union grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her supervisor and the school board.

The personal respondent and the union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of related grievances filed by the union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating she did not consent to or have knowledge of the grievance filed on her behalf.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding it inappropriate to defer the application for a grievance the applicant did not initiate or consent to.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

Allen v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1149

Samantha Seabrook

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to nullify human rights settlement denied; applicant failed to prove incapacity or duress.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required to set aside a settlement.

The evidence showed the applicant understood the key terms and the consequences of signing, and the pressure experienced during mediation did not amount to duress.

The request to nullify the settlement was denied.

Alexander v. Iron Mountain Incorporated, 2016 HRTO 1148

Jo-Anne Pickel

Adjournment request denied as potential future scheduling conflict does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Adams v. SNC - Lavalin Operations and Maintenance Inc., 2016 HRTO 1147

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with disclosure directions.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to disclose documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to provide the required materials and did not respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

Tanya Francis v. Gap (Canada) Inc., 2016 HRTO 1145

Geoff Jeffery

2 cases2009–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 23, 2016

Human rights application dismissed; gender expression does not protect cisgender men acting in stereotypically male ways.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Curtis Barksey v. Four Corners Medical Walk In Clinic/Northwood Medical Clinics Inc., 2016 HRTO 1116

Daniell Bartley

1 case2016–2016

Jo-Anne Pickel

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, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Tony Delville v. City of Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1097

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request for reconsideration dismissed as the challenged interim decision was not a final decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied a request to amend the application.

Anton Bonnici on behalf of Emy Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc., 2016 HRTO 1094

Jo-Anne Pickel

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to file documents, witness lists, and summaries in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to file the required materials and did not respond to two Case Assessment Directions, which warned that the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

Si v. London Health Sciences Centre, 2016 HRTO 1038

Paul Hosack

6 cases1999–2017

Jo-Anne Pickel

Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior WSIB and ESA matters did not address discrimination.

Da Silva v. Scotlynn Investments Inc., 2016 HRTO 1037

Robert Edwards

20 cases2001–2022

Jo-Anne Pickel

Practising Law - Employed20 cases2005–2017

Adjournment request denied; lack of preparation is not an extraordinary circumstance.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he needed more time to gather information for his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances and that a party's lack of preparation does not meet this threshold.

The Tribunal also issued directions for pre-hearing disclosure.

Gale v. Thunder Bay Police Service, 2016 HRTO 1031

Patricia Matusiak

Jo-Anne Pickel