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 the application because 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.

Nicolaos Koutlemanis v. RBC Royal Bank, 2012 HRTO 2016

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.

Andrew White v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2012 HRTO 2012

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.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondent requested a rescheduling.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her availability for alternative dates, but she failed to respond.

After a subsequent warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Tracy Lynn Carnohan v. Domclean Limited, 2012 HRTO 2004

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide requested submissions on jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the application and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Iona Barton v. St. John’s Norway Cemetery & Crematorium and the Church of St. John the Baptist, 2012 HRTO 2011

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he 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.

McCarthy v. TI Automotive, 2012 HRTO 2007

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 and receiving an extension of time to file a Reply, the applicant failed to update his contact information or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence despite warnings that his application could be dismissed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Ross v. Maple Lodge Farms, 2012 HRTO 2006

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2012

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response before Tribunal proceeds without their participation.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate and granting them 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

Julie Costigane v. Nyood Restaurant & Bar and Arturo Gayle, 2012 HRTO 1991

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for union grievance did not constitute good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed more than 16 months after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was waiting for his union grievance to conclude and had been advised by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to pursue the grievance first.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanations, finding no evidence that he was advised to delay his application or that he was misled by his union.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Suraj Persad v. Toronto District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1901

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 2, 2012

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application after missing initial deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

Grimes v. Romas, 2012 HRTO 1869

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 28, 2012

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

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

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

Ankur Kansal v. CIBC, 2012 HRTO 1857

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 26, 2012

Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after applicants failed to respond to Tribunal inquiries.

The four applicants filed human rights applications that were previously deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing SIU and OIPRD investigations and a criminal proceeding.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicants requesting an update on the status of the other proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

None of the applicants responded to the Tribunal's letter.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

Cushnie v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1842

Herman Faber

4 cases2012–2013

Naomi Overend

Tribunal lifts abeyance and directs human rights application to mediation following appointment of Estate Trustee.

The human rights application was held in abeyance pending the appointment of an Estate Trustee for the deceased applicant.

Upon receipt of a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a will appointing a legal representative who wished to proceed, and with the respondents declining to make further submissions, the Tribunal lifted the abeyance and directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

The Estate of Linda Ann Denham v. Hamilton Health Sciences Volunteer Association, 2012 HRTO 1837

Pamela Krauss

4 cases2012–2017

Blair McCreadie

17 cases2000–2015

Naomi Overend

Consent order granted allowing respondent to file an amended Response after receiving further particulars.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars from the applicant and an opportunity to file an amended Response.

The applicant consented to the relief sought and provided the further particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file any amended Response within three weeks.

Amanda Sills v. AECOM Canada Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1828

Naomi Overend

Tribunal directs corporate respondent to file Response within 14 days and applicant to provide correct addresses.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

The Notice of Application sent to the personal respondents was returned with a letter indicating they did not reside at that address.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning of the consequences of failing to do so under Rule 5.5.

The applicant was directed to provide alternate contact information for the personal respondents.

Jensen v. 2283172 Ontario Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1754

Naomi Overend

Application against sentencing judge dismissed based on judicial immunity; particulars ordered for remaining respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services against a sentencing judge, his defence counsel, the police, and a municipal manager.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the judge on the basis of judicial immunity, as the allegations related to comments made during sentencing.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars regarding the allegations against the remaining respondents.

Vernon Lohan v. Honourable Justice K.L. McLeod, Sylvia Verkerk, Peel Regional Police and Jamie Hinton, 2012 HRTO 1752

Naomi Overend

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response before Tribunal proceeds without further notice.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

Wendy Rochon v. Northern Initiative for Social Action and Shana Calixte, 2012 HRTO 1735

Naomi Overend

Reconsideration granted where applicant's failure to provide correct respondent contact information was inadvertent.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed because the applicant provided incorrect contact information for the respondent and failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for accurate information.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, explained that he misheard the respondent's name and had attempted to fax the correct information to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal accepted that the failure to provide the information was inadvertent and granted the request for reconsideration, finding that factors existed that outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

Lloy v. Meikle, 2012 HRTO 1733

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice42 cases2005–2026

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.

Cardona v. Precision Truck Lines Inc., 2012 HRTO 1727

Steven D. Gadbois

Naomi Overend

Tribunal dismisses 2008 allegations for delay and defers 2010 allegations pending WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent employer in 2008 and a subsequent refusal to hire in 2010.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2008 allegations for delay, finding they were filed beyond the one-year time limit and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal deferred the remaining 2010 allegations pending the conclusion of concurrent WSIB/WSIAT proceedings, as both proceedings required a determination of the applicant's level of functional impairment.

Anibal Condor Golec v. Pfenning’s Organic Vegetables Farm Inc., 2012 HRTO 1711

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 11, 2012

Respondent granted final 14 days to file Response after failing to meet extended deadline.

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

The Tribunal's initial Notice of Application was sent to an incorrect postal code, prompting a re-issued Notice with an extended deadline.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the new deadline.

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

Jason McDowell v. A Dark Horse 1276458 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 1718

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

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 the application because 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.

Nicolaos Koutlemanis v. RBC Royal Bank, 2012 HRTO 2016

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.

Andrew White v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, 2012 HRTO 2012

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.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondent requested a rescheduling.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her availability for alternative dates, but she failed to respond.

After a subsequent warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Tracy Lynn Carnohan v. Domclean Limited, 2012 HRTO 2004

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide requested submissions on jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the application and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Iona Barton v. St. John’s Norway Cemetery & Crematorium and the Church of St. John the Baptist, 2012 HRTO 2011

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he 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.

McCarthy v. TI Automotive, 2012 HRTO 2007

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.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Ross v. Maple Lodge Farms, 2012 HRTO 2006

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 22, 2012

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response before Tribunal proceeds without their participation.

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

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

Julie Costigane v. Nyood Restaurant & Bar and Arturo Gayle, 2012 HRTO 1991

Shelina Ali

Practising Law - Employed7 cases2012–2015

Hermie Abraham

4 cases2012–2016

Grant Bowers

34 cases1995–2014

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 5, 2012

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for union grievance did not constitute good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed more than 16 months after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanations, finding no evidence that he was advised to delay his application or that he was misled by his union.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

Suraj Persad v. Toronto District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1901

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 2, 2012

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application after missing initial deadline.

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

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

Grimes v. Romas, 2012 HRTO 1869

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 28, 2012

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

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

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

Ankur Kansal v. CIBC, 2012 HRTO 1857

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 26, 2012

Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after applicants failed to respond to Tribunal inquiries.

The four applicants filed human rights applications that were previously deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing SIU and OIPRD investigations and a criminal proceeding.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicants requesting an update on the status of the other proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

None of the applicants responded to the Tribunal's letter.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

Cushnie v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1842

Herman Faber

4 cases2012–2013

Naomi Overend

Tribunal lifts abeyance and directs human rights application to mediation following appointment of Estate Trustee.

The human rights application was held in abeyance pending the appointment of an Estate Trustee for the deceased applicant.

The Estate of Linda Ann Denham v. Hamilton Health Sciences Volunteer Association, 2012 HRTO 1837

Pamela Krauss

4 cases2012–2017

Blair McCreadie

17 cases2000–2015

Naomi Overend

Consent order granted allowing respondent to file an amended Response after receiving further particulars.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars from the applicant and an opportunity to file an amended Response.

The applicant consented to the relief sought and provided the further particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file any amended Response within three weeks.

Amanda Sills v. AECOM Canada Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1828

Naomi Overend

Tribunal directs corporate respondent to file Response within 14 days and applicant to provide correct addresses.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

The Notice of Application sent to the personal respondents was returned with a letter indicating they did not reside at that address.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning of the consequences of failing to do so under Rule 5.5.

The applicant was directed to provide alternate contact information for the personal respondents.

Jensen v. 2283172 Ontario Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1754

Naomi Overend

Application against sentencing judge dismissed based on judicial immunity; particulars ordered for remaining respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services against a sentencing judge, his defence counsel, the police, and a municipal manager.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the judge on the basis of judicial immunity, as the allegations related to comments made during sentencing.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars regarding the allegations against the remaining respondents.

Vernon Lohan v. Honourable Justice K.L. McLeod, Sylvia Verkerk, Peel Regional Police and Jamie Hinton, 2012 HRTO 1752

Naomi Overend

Respondents given 14 days to file a Response before Tribunal proceeds without further notice.

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

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

Wendy Rochon v. Northern Initiative for Social Action and Shana Calixte, 2012 HRTO 1735

Naomi Overend

Reconsideration granted where applicant's failure to provide correct respondent contact information was inadvertent.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed because the applicant provided incorrect contact information for the respondent and failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for accurate information.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, explained that he misheard the respondent's name and had attempted to fax the correct information to the Tribunal.

Lloy v. Meikle, 2012 HRTO 1733

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice42 cases2005–2026

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.

Cardona v. Precision Truck Lines Inc., 2012 HRTO 1727

Steven D. Gadbois

Naomi Overend

Tribunal dismisses 2008 allegations for delay and defers 2010 allegations pending WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent employer in 2008 and a subsequent refusal to hire in 2010.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2008 allegations for delay, finding they were filed beyond the one-year time limit and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Anibal Condor Golec v. Pfenning’s Organic Vegetables Farm Inc., 2012 HRTO 1711

Naomi Overend