Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 13, 2013

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The parties consented to mediation, but a dispute arose regarding the location.

The Tribunal sent multiple communications to the applicant requesting his position on holding the mediation in Ottawa, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the specified deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Jeffery Francis Cox v. Momentous Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1389

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters directing the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Kybanga v. London (City), 2013 HRTO 1373

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The respondents filed a response requesting dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request to dismiss by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Knight v. Dr. M. Safari Dentistry Professional Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1374

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

The respondent filed a Response and requested the application be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to the respondent's request.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to indicate his intentions, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Jeffrey Russell v. City of Dryden, 2013 HRTO 1377

Naomi Overend

Tribunal issues 14-day warning to non-responding respondent before proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate a deferred human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and ordered the respondents to file a full response.

Three of the respondents filed a response, but the individual respondent Chis did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent that failure to file a response within 14 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming her to have accepted the allegations.

Bhol v. Coca Cola Refreshments Canada Company, 2013 HRTO 1379

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Jan Peters v. The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines and Simone Phelan, 2013 HRTO 1378

Human rights application partially dismissed at summary hearing for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the City of Markham, its Mayor, and two Councillors, after her hydro was disconnected.

Following a summary hearing to assess whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal allowed amendments to add the City of Markham as a respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on gender identity and marital status, as well as all claims against the Mayor and one Councillor, finding no evidence linking their alleged failure to intervene to the applicant's race.

The claim against the remaining Councillor was allowed to proceed due to a factual dispute over a comment allegedly made about the applicant's background.

Sonia Chisholm v. City of Markham, Frank Scarpitti, Alan Ho and Jack Heath, 2013 HRTO 1351

Sue Lott

26 cases2009–2017

Sheri Farahani

3 cases2011–2013

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 1, 2013

Human rights application dismissed under section 45.1 as substance was dealt with in prior arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following her termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the applicant's human rights issues and that the arbitral process appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

Dalrymple v. 412506 Ontario Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1340

Doug Wilkins

1 case2013–2013

Andrew Zabrovsky

34 cases2010–2025

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 26, 2013

Employer discriminated by abruptly hanging up and rescinding a job interview offer upon hearing applicant's speech impediment.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy and a speech impediment, applied for an accounting clerk position with the respondent.

During a telephone screening call, the respondent offered the applicant an in-person interview.

However, as the applicant's speech impediment became apparent while he was slowly writing down directions and asking for information to be repeated, the respondent's representative abruptly hung up the phone, effectively rescinding the interview offer.

The Tribunal found the respondent's representative's testimony to be less credible than the applicant's.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the respondent's decision to terminate the call and withdraw the interview opportunity, amounting to discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent's representatives to complete human rights training.

Li v. Lazar Yitzchok/Lazar Gourmet, 2013 HRTO 1307

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 25, 2013

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Lucia Yolanda Rocafuerte v. GDI Integrated Facility Services – GDI Services (Canada) LP, 2013 HRTO 1300

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 25, 2013

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After the applicant provided incomplete information, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring further submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

James Chownyk v. Commissionaires-Hamilton, 2013 HRTO 1301

Gail Geronimo

18 cases2013–2017

Naomi Overend

Human rights application alleging racially motivated CAS report by school dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a Black father, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of race when a teacher reported his daughter's disclosures about her home environment to the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the teacher was statutorily mandated to report the disclosure under the Children and Family Services Act and followed board guidelines.

The applicant provided no evidence beyond bald assertions to support his claim that the report was racially motivated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success and found it was statutorily barred by section 72(7) of the Children and Family Services Act.

H.O. v. Toronto District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1296

Wade Poziomka

55 cases2011–2017

Naomi Overend

Request to amend human rights application to include ground of reprisal granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include the ground of reprisal.

The original application alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and disability.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the amendment did not change the substance of the application and would not prejudice the respondent.

Amanda Fernando v. M.G.R. Contracting and Maintenance Ltd. and Graziano Roti, 2013 HRTO 1295

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID despite being granted an extension of time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Reza Rassoulli v. Toronto District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1290

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After requesting to reschedule a mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting available dates and confirming her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Deborah O’Donnell v. Red Label Vacation Inc. and Christine Procter, 2013 HRTO 1286

Naomi Overend

Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of marital status.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Shagufta Qureshi v. Victoria Park Community Homes Inc., 2013 HRTO 1287

Paul Meier

115 cases2006–2026

Joyce Thomas

3 cases2013–2018

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 10, 2013

Untimely human rights allegations dismissed for delay; pursuing grievance not a valid good faith explanation.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal due to delay.

The applicant filed the application outside the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code for several allegations.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were not part of a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, noting that pursuing a grievance is generally not a valid explanation.

The untimely allegations were dismissed, while the timely allegations were allowed to proceed.

Muldoon v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2013 HRTO 1200

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 8, 2013

Application alleging contravention of settlement dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to direction.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he wished to pursue the application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Randall Crook v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1182

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 8, 2013

Respondent given 14 days to file a Response after failing to meet the initial deadline.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Simpson v. Home Depot of Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 1183

Naomi Overend