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 and a subsequent follow-up email.

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

Shawn Taylor v. Kenex Coatings, 2016 HRTO 1507

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file required reply and submissions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Delivery of Response and Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file a Reply and submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to a follow-up letter warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

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

Shannon Hicks v. London Ale House and Alex Petropoulakis, 2016 HRTO 1506

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 10, 2016

Employer ordered to pay $10,000 for terminating probationary employee via text after she suffered a concussion.

The applicant, a probationary employee at a frozen yogurt shop, suffered a concussion and required time off work.

The respondent employer terminated her employment via text message, explicitly citing her absence.

The respondent failed to participate in the Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

The Tribunal found that the termination was discriminatory on the basis of disability and awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with an order for the respondent to complete human rights training.

Brillinger v. Edery, 2016 HRTO 1450

Applications against occupational health consultants dismissed as disagreements with medical judgments do not constitute discrimination.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer, several individual employees, and the occupational health consultants retained by the employer.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the occupational health consultants and their employer should be removed as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege facts that could constitute discrimination or reprisal by the medical consultants, as disagreements with medical judgments do not amount to discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the medical consultants and their employer, and also removed the individual employee respondents as the employer accepted full responsibility for their actions.

Salisbury v. Independent Electrical System Operator, 2016 HRTO 1447

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice11 cases2010–2024

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) on the basis that 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.

Margarite Tremblay v. Kingston Police Criminal Records, 2016 HRTO 1422

Stephen Ellis

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no Code-based discrimination was alleged.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the disability claims administrator for his former employer, a federally regulated bank, alleging discrimination based on disability after his short-term disability benefits were denied.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant merely challenged the application of the benefits policy and did not allege that the respondent took discriminatory criteria into account when assessing his claim.

Kanagasingham Kokulakanthan v. Oncidium Health Group, 2016 HRTO 1421

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 31, 2016

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to update contact information.

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 NOID was returned by mail because the applicant no longer resided at the provided address and had not updated his contact information.

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

Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2016 HRTO 1405

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 28, 2016

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) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent reminder email.

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

Rafaa Elifa v. Tara Lynn Schlyer and Jamie Hartling, 2016 HRTO 1399

Naomi Overend

Human rights application regarding supportive housing waitlist delay dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability and receipt of public assistance, citing a four-year wait for supportive housing.

The respondent, which links individuals to supportive housing, attributed the delay to a lack of supply and the applicant's specific need for an independent downtown unit.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant did not allege differential treatment based on a protected ground; rather, his disability was the very reason he was eligible for the respondent's services.

Zuhail Khan v. The Access Point, 2016 HRTO 1387

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's status inquiry.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing court proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the court proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

Cosier v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2016 HRTO 1385

Sudevi Mukherjee-Gothi

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 25, 2016

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to attend preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was scheduled for a preliminary hearing to determine if it should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to attend the rescheduled preliminary hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned, or in the alternative, for delay.

Moes v. The Council of Rehoboth United Reform Church of Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1375

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 21, 2016

Human rights application alleging failure to accommodate mould sensitivity in rental housing dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant rented a condominium unit and shortly after moving in, claimed to experience symptoms associated with mould exposure.

She alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, arguing the respondents failed to accommodate her mould sensitivity by testing for and remediating mould.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the presence of mould in the unit, as multiple tests showed normal conditions and lower airborne mould levels indoors than outdoors.

Furthermore, the respondents had agreed to financially support invasive testing, but the applicant interfered with the process and withheld rent.

The application was dismissed.

Sara Silverberg v. Nixon Lau and Valeri Moltchanov, 2016 HRTO 1368

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 7, 2016

Applicant permitted to withdraw human rights application despite respondent's request for a hearing and remedies.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, seeking to proceed to a hearing to obtain remedies in its favour.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal, noting that refusing the request would serve little purpose as the Tribunal cannot compel the applicant's attendance, and it lacks the authority to award the remedies sought by the respondent.

Pollock v. Georgina Taxi Inc., 2016 HRTO 1304

Susan McCorquodale

Not Practising Law11 cases2010–2017

Anna Abbott

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 26, 2016

Adjournment granted to allow respondent time to gather expert evidence and coordinate intervention.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing dates to gather expert evidence and coordinate intervention following a previous interim decision that narrowed the issues and invited intervention.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but did not address the time required for expert evidence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, set aside previous compliance deadlines, and directed that the interim decisions be sent to potential intervenors.

Reilly v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1251

Carl W. Peterson

18 cases1986–2020

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 13, 2016

Individual respondents removed from human rights application where corporate employer accepted vicarious liability.

The applicant, a bus driver, alleged discrimination based on disability against his employer and two individual supervisors regarding his return to work and accommodation.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondents and strike allegations from 2013 due to delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike the 2013 allegations, finding they could form part of the narrative.

Wilkinson v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2016 HRTO 1205

Naomi Overend

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

After the Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond might result in abandonment, the applicant still did not respond.

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

Timothy Hall v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2016 HRTO 1197

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeframe.

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

Heather Krick v. Community Living Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1196

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice5 cases2015–2017

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

Archer v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2016 HRTO 1191

Adrian Jakibchuk

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 9, 2016

Request to amend application to add out-of-time allegations denied; request for production of documents denied.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of racial discrimination that occurred shortly after he was hired, more than a year before his termination and the filing of his application.

The respondent requested that these allegations be struck from the applicant's Reply.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request and denied the amendment, finding the allegations were out of time and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for production of pay stubs at this stage, as he had not explained their relevance.

Mohamed Youssef v. Gemstar Security Services Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1190

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 31, 2016

Request for interim remedy to halt dog microchipping fines denied for procedural and substantive deficiencies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding a requirement to microchip her dog.

She sought an interim remedy to prevent the respondent from enforcing a $205 fine or issuing further fines.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to include the required declaration under Rule 23.3 and failed to demonstrate that an interim remedy was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

Smith v. London Animal Care Centre, 2016 HRTO 1154

Applicant

Chad McLeodSelf-represented
1 appearance
Christopher IyirhiaroSelf-represented
1 appearance
Daniel MuldoonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Doug SurhSelf-represented
1 appearance
Gabriel LandrySelf-represented
1 appearance
Marianne AmodeoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Meghan SimonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mohammad ShabbeerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Patrice ChisholmSelf-represented
1 appearance
Sara SilverbergSelf-represented
1 appearance
Simon MalekSelf-represented
1 appearance
Timothy ThurtleSelf-represented
1 appearance
Vicki KellSelf-represented
1 appearance

Carillion Services Inc., Respondent

Dan ShieldsCounsel
1 appearance

Comstock Canada Ltd., Respondent

Madeleine L. S. LowenbergCounsel
1 appearance

corporate counsel for Crown Taxi Inc.

Stefanie Chin-YickCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel

Ann BurkeCounsel
1 appearance
Daryn JeffriesCounsel
1 appearance
Guy HunterCounsel
1 appearance
Jonathan DyeCounsel
1 appearance
Leonard MarvyCounsel
1 appearance
Paul MatthewsCounsel
1 appearance
Veronica KennyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Applicant

Daniel A. LubinCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the City of Toronto

Robert FredericksCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent

Glorie AlfredCounsel
1 appearance
Robert TaylorCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

William D. AndersonCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association

James K. McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance

Crossby Dewar Inc., Respondent

Leah SimonCounsel
1 appearance

CUPE, Local 145, Intervenor

Susan BallantyneCounsel
1 appearance

for 1210670 Ontario Inc., Royal Taxi Inc., Beck Taxi Inc., Mohammed Bhatti, Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd.

Carl W. PetersonCounsel
1 appearance

for Academic Women for Justice

Agnes WhitfieldAgent
1 appearance

for Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care and Heather Lisner-Kerbel

David ChondonCounsel
1 appearance

for Ellen Sue Mesbur

Clarke MelvilleCounsel
1 appearance

for Family and Children Services of Waterloo Region

Maura ThompsonCounsel
1 appearance

for Food for Life and Karen Bonham

Anthony BaluaraCounsel
1 appearance

for herself

Leon BartonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for herself, Ms. Germain and Marathon Pulp Inc.

Bobbi-Jo SchwantzSelf-represented
1 appearance

for himself

Alex GabrielSelf-represented
1 appearance
James BartonSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Kinark Child and Family Services

Sabatina VassalliCounsel
1 appearance

for Kingston Access Services

Trevor FrayAgent
2 appearances

for Loblaw Inc.

John O’ReillyCounsel
1 appearance

for Lorna Jack

Bob DickisonAgent
1 appearance

formerly for Crown Taxi Inc.

D. Russ MakepeaceCounsel
1 appearance

for Michael Burns

Dan CondonCounsel
1 appearance

for Michael McInnis and Constantina Tsilimigras

Jeffrey AndrewCounsel
1 appearance

for Peel Children’s Aid Society

Carole G. JenkinsCounsel
1 appearance

for P & H Foods, Respondent

Maureen BallCounsel
1 appearance

for Pizza Nova

Donna PolgarCounsel
1 appearance

for Presbyterian Church in Canada and Herb Gale

Stephen KendallAgent
1 appearance

for Primary Response Inc. and Meredith Cranswick

Tom FulfordAgent
1 appearance

for Richard Moon

Freya KristjansonCounsel
1 appearance

for St. Luke’s Church and Sheila Plant

Sheila PlantSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the affected party

Natasha UdellCounsel
1 appearance

for the Affected Party

Ryan GoldvineCounsel
1 appearance

for the applicant

Brenda CuthbertCounsel
1 appearance
Kingsley LaurinCounsel
1 appearance
Lina MiragliaSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Self-representedSelf-represented
11 appearances
Doug SurhSelf-represented
6 appearances
Mary EbertsCounsel
5 appearances
Alexandre PapouchineSelf-represented
4 appearances
Arthur ZeilikmanCounsel
3 appearances
James LloySelf-represented
3 appearances
Laura PryseSelf-represented
3 appearances
Wasi KhanSelf-represented
3 appearances
Cecil NormanAgent
3 appearances
Eric MattisonSelf-represented
3 appearances
Hyun Whan KimSelf-represented
3 appearances
Michelle MulgraveCounsel
3 appearances
Guillermo FloresSelf-represented
2 appearances
Tara MyersSelf-represented
2 appearances
Nancy PolsinelliSelf-represented
2 appearances
Robert WeedenSelf-represented
2 appearances
Katherine LinSelf-represented
2 appearances
Ayoob KhanAgent
2 appearances
Caroline (Nini) JonesCounsel
2 appearances
Christine LongtinSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicants

A.T.Agent
4 appearances
Cyndy HunterSelf-represented
2 appearances
Dan HunterSelf-represented
2 appearances
Kevin LiuSelf-represented
2 appearances
Elizabeth KeepSelf-represented
2 appearances
Grant DobsonSelf-represented
2 appearances
Judith ZhangSelf-represented
2 appearances
Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance
S.H.Self-represented
1 appearance
Shawn WestonAgent
1 appearance
Andriy KrykunenkoSelf-represented
1 appearance
C.M.Self-represented
1 appearance
C.R.Self-represented
1 appearance
E.L.Self-represented
1 appearance
Olga OleanovskiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paula SeymourCounsel
1 appearance
S.B.Agent
1 appearance

for the Barrie Police Services Board

Glenn ChristieCounsel
1 appearance

for the City of Toronto

Rosanne GiuliettiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Complainant

Caroline V. (Nini) JonesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Complainants S. and W.

Cynthia WilkeyCounsel
1 appearance
Lesli BisgouldCounsel
1 appearance

for the Corporation of the City of Kingston

Sarah GareauCounsel
1 appearance

for the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, Intervenor

Jo-Ann SeamonCounsel
1 appearance

for the individual respondent Quinton Taylor

Cheryl HessCounsel
1 appearance

for the Industrial Accident Victims Group of Ontario, Intervenor

Maryth YachninCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Ryan GoldvineCounsel
2 appearances
Laurie KentCounsel
2 appearances
Katherine FerreiraCounsel
2 appearances
Paul O’RyanCounsel
2 appearances
Devon PaulCounsel
2 appearances
Jerrry RasoCounsel
1 appearance
Micheal KlugCounsel
1 appearance
Rebecca LeeCounsel
1 appearance
Richard LavertyUnion representative
1 appearance
Risa PancerCounsel
1 appearance
Sue LottCounsel
1 appearance
Tim ZayackUnion representative
1 appearance
Caroline JonesCounsel
1 appearance
Caroline V. (Nini) JonesCounsel
1 appearance
Dave SteeleCounsel
1 appearance
Gail MisraCounsel
1 appearance
Gavin LeebCounsel
1 appearance
Glenn WheelerAgent
1 appearance
Ian J. FellowsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services

Cheryl EllisonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ministry of the Attorney General

Anita LyonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Office of the Employer Advisor, Intervenor

Michael ZacksCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Cathy PikeCounsel
1 appearance
Christine ElwellCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Intervenor

Cathy PikeCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondent

Jinan KubursiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Andrew ZabrovskyCounsel
4 appearances
Patricia G. MurrayCounsel
4 appearances
Marnie CorboldCounsel
3 appearances
Self-representedSelf-represented
3 appearances
Mark DiGirolamoCounsel
2 appearances
Adrian JakibchukCounsel
2 appearances
Lisa KwasekCounsel
2 appearances
Mathias LinkCounsel
2 appearances
Michelle HenryCounsel
2 appearances
Blair McCreadieCounsel
2 appearances
Grant BowersCounsel
2 appearances
Susan MunnCounsel
2 appearances
Paula DowAgent
2 appearances
Ronald G. SlaghtCounsel
2 appearances
Jane M. GoodingCounsel
2 appearances
W. Gordon SteinbergAgent
2 appearances
Madeleine LoewenbergCounsel
2 appearances
Patricia MatusiakCounsel
2 appearances
David GourlayCounsel
2 appearances
Evan Van DyckCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent 2185559 Ontario Inc.

Paul BursteinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Alison Freeland

Laura StewartCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent BMO Field

David LedermanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Cheryl Paige

Glorie AlfredCounsel
3 appearances

for the Respondent Community Living Dufferin

Lisa CartyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Credit Valley Hospital

Kathyrn BirdCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Domain Registry Group Inc.

Alan BenloloAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Eugene Reid

Robert HealeyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

Anna AbbottCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Halton (Region)

Edward MillwardCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Independent Electricity System Operator

Richard CharneyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Marathon Pulp Inc.

Kevin D. MacNeillCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Mariposa Co-operative Homes

Charles SinclairCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Nimet Kara

Laura K. WilliamsCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Indira SawhCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Richard Moon

Jo-Anne PickelCounsel
2 appearances
Freya KristjansonCounsel
1 appearance
Freya KritjansonCounsel
1 appearance
Amanda DarrachCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

Michelle O’BonsawinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent(s)

Michael MacLellanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Heather CrispCounsel
2 appearances
Ann BurkeCounsel
2 appearances
Lisa RiegelCounsel
2 appearances
Antoni CasalinuovoCounsel
2 appearances
Gregory PowerCounsel
2 appearances
Terry HillCounsel
2 appearances
Greg BullenCounsel
2 appearances
Indira SawhCounsel
2 appearances
Marian LintonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Mark ArnoldCounsel
1 appearance
Mark MendlCounsel
1 appearance
Andrea KrywonisCounsel
1 appearance
Ann E. BurkeCounsel
1 appearance
Baaba ForsonCounsel
1 appearance
Bhavanaben PatelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Caitlin KavanaghAgent
1 appearance
Carl W. PetersonCounsel
1 appearance
Colin RaynerCounsel
1 appearance
Dana FullerCounsel
1 appearance
David A. GourlayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Allan Rosenfeld, Matthew Burnstein, and Ridgeway Occupational Consultants Inc.

Mira NovekCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents and Intervenor CUPE Local 3083 and CUPE National

Paul O’RyanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Home Depot of Canada Inc. and Jessica Basken

Jonathan DyeCounsel
1 appearance

for the respondents in Applications 2009-03081-I, 2009-03083-I, 2009-03084-I and 2009-03086-I

Carl PetersonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Kap Chul Lee and Sun Hew Lee

John TealCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Office of the Independent Police Review Director and Gerry McNeilly

Lynette D’SouzaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Regional Municipality of Halton Police Services Board and Bill Marshall

Adam GuyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Toronto Police Services Board (2010-06416-I)

David A. GourlayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Toronto Police Services Board (2010-07698-I) and Bradley Verspeeten (2010-04964-I)

Lisa C. CabelCounsel
4 appearances
Naomi CallaCounsel
2 appearances
Naomi E. CallaCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Toronto Police Services Board and Chris Dobbs (2010-06416-I)

David A. GourlayCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondents Toronto Police Services Board, Officer Ruttner and Officer Taylor

Michele WrightCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Ltd.

Peter DillonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Great West Life Assurance Company

Susan McCorquodaleCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Town of Fort Erie

Woodward B. McKaigCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board (2010-04964-I)

Antonella CeddiaCounsel
4 appearances

for the Respondent Toronto Police Services Board (2010-06416-I)

David A. GourlayCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University

Raj AnandCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent University of Windsor

Raj AnandCounsel
4 appearances

for the Toronto Police Association

Jessica DowlingCounsel
1 appearance
Tim ZayackUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Toronto Police Services Board and Chief William Blair

Kerri KitchuraCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Transit Commission

Marni TolenskyCounsel
1 appearance

for the University of Windsor

Raj AnandCounsel
1 appearance

for the University of Windsor Faculty Association

James RenaudCounsel
1 appearance

for United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175, Affected Party

Marcia BarryCounsel
1 appearance

for Women and the Law

Emir CrowneCounsel
1 appearance

LIUNA, Local 1059, Intervenor; Paul Coyne and Vernon Stoddart, Respondents

Lindsay LawrenceCounsel
1 appearance

Next Friend for the Applicants

A.T.Agent
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Kathie PassmoreSelf-represented
1 appearance
Marilynn MonnierSelf-represented
1 appearance
Rina Jade VanhelvoortSelf-represented
1 appearance

On his own behalf

Evgeny KopylovSelf-represented
1 appearance
John NearingSelf-represented
1 appearance
Legrand BertrandSelf-represented
1 appearance
Martin NyilasSelf-represented
1 appearance

Respondents

Indira SawhCounsel
1 appearance
Jody VilleneuveSelf-represented
1 appearance
J. Paul WearingCounsel
1 appearance
Kevin InwoodCounsel
1 appearance

Self-represented

Randall CharassSelf-represented
1 appearance
Richard ReidSelf-represented
1 appearance
Wazi KhanSelf-represented
1 appearance

Self-represented and Representative for John Buttigieg and Estate of Lorenza Buttigieg

Robert ButtigiegSelf-represented
1 appearance

William Osler Health Centre, Respondent

Andrew ShawCounsel
1 appearance

975

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

8.9

cases/mo

HRTO975(100%)

Decision types

motion

937

trial

/Adjudicator

Naomi Overend — Vice-Chair

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Employment and Labour Law

Other Tribunals

Landlord and Tenant

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Real Estate Law

Health Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Naomi Overend

Vice-Chair·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario·Since 2008

975

cases · 10 yrs · HRTO

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 792Vice-chair· 78Adjudicator· 71Vice-Chair· 13Adjudicator· 11Associate Chair (Acting)· 3Vice-chair· 1Acting Associate Chair· 1

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 and a subsequent follow-up email.

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

Shawn Taylor v. Kenex Coatings, 2016 HRTO 1507

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file required reply and submissions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Delivery of Response and Notice of Request to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file a Reply and submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to a follow-up letter warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

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

Shannon Hicks v. London Ale House and Alex Petropoulakis, 2016 HRTO 1506

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 10, 2016

Employer ordered to pay $10,000 for terminating probationary employee via text after she suffered a concussion.

The applicant, a probationary employee at a frozen yogurt shop, suffered a concussion and required time off work.

The respondent employer terminated her employment via text message, explicitly citing her absence.

The respondent failed to participate in the Human Rights Tribunal hearing.

Brillinger v. Edery, 2016 HRTO 1450

Richard Charney

25 cases1986–2025

Mira Novek

Practising Law - Employed10 cases2015–2021

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 9, 2016

Applications against occupational health consultants dismissed as disagreements with medical judgments do not constitute discrimination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the occupational health consultants and their employer should be removed as respondents.

Salisbury v. Independent Electrical System Operator, 2016 HRTO 1447

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice11 cases2010–2024

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) on the basis that 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.

Margarite Tremblay v. Kingston Police Criminal Records, 2016 HRTO 1422

Stephen Ellis

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no Code-based discrimination was alleged.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

Kanagasingham Kokulakanthan v. Oncidium Health Group, 2016 HRTO 1421

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 31, 2016

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to update contact information.

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 NOID was returned by mail because the applicant no longer resided at the provided address and had not updated his contact information.

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

Muhammad Aslam Bajwa v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2016 HRTO 1405

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 28, 2016

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) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent reminder email.

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

Rafaa Elifa v. Tara Lynn Schlyer and Jamie Hartling, 2016 HRTO 1399

Naomi Overend

Human rights application regarding supportive housing waitlist delay dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability and receipt of public assistance, citing a four-year wait for supportive housing.

The respondent, which links individuals to supportive housing, attributed the delay to a lack of supply and the applicant's specific need for an independent downtown unit.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Zuhail Khan v. The Access Point, 2016 HRTO 1387

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's status inquiry.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing court proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the court proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

Cosier v. York Region Children’s Aid Society, 2016 HRTO 1385

Sudevi Mukherjee-Gothi

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 25, 2016

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to attend preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was scheduled for a preliminary hearing to determine if it should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to attend the rescheduled preliminary hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned, or in the alternative, for delay.

Moes v. The Council of Rehoboth United Reform Church of Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1375

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 21, 2016

Human rights application alleging failure to accommodate mould sensitivity in rental housing dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant rented a condominium unit and shortly after moving in, claimed to experience symptoms associated with mould exposure.

She alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, arguing the respondents failed to accommodate her mould sensitivity by testing for and remediating mould.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the presence of mould in the unit, as multiple tests showed normal conditions and lower airborne mould levels indoors than outdoors.

Furthermore, the respondents had agreed to financially support invasive testing, but the applicant interfered with the process and withheld rent.

The application was dismissed.

Sara Silverberg v. Nixon Lau and Valeri Moltchanov, 2016 HRTO 1368

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 7, 2016

Applicant permitted to withdraw human rights application despite respondent's request for a hearing and remedies.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The respondent opposed the withdrawal, seeking to proceed to a hearing to obtain remedies in its favour.

Pollock v. Georgina Taxi Inc., 2016 HRTO 1304

Susan McCorquodale

Not Practising Law11 cases2010–2017

Anna Abbott

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 26, 2016

Adjournment granted to allow respondent time to gather expert evidence and coordinate intervention.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but did not address the time required for expert evidence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, set aside previous compliance deadlines, and directed that the interim decisions be sent to potential intervenors.

Reilly v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2016 HRTO 1251

Carl W. Peterson

18 cases1986–2020

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 13, 2016

Individual respondents removed from human rights application where corporate employer accepted vicarious liability.

The applicant, a bus driver, alleged discrimination based on disability against his employer and two individual supervisors regarding his return to work and accommodation.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondents and strike allegations from 2013 due to delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike the 2013 allegations, finding they could form part of the narrative.

Wilkinson v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2016 HRTO 1205

Naomi Overend

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

After the Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond might result in abandonment, the applicant still did not respond.

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

Timothy Hall v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2016 HRTO 1197

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeframe.

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

Heather Krick v. Community Living Hamilton, 2016 HRTO 1196

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice5 cases2015–2017

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

Archer v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2016 HRTO 1191

Adrian Jakibchuk

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 9, 2016

Request to amend application to add out-of-time allegations denied; request for production of documents denied.

The respondent requested that these allegations be struck from the applicant's Reply.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request and denied the amendment, finding the allegations were out of time and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for production of pay stubs at this stage, as he had not explained their relevance.

Mohamed Youssef v. Gemstar Security Services Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1190

Naomi Overend