Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 22, 2016

Reconsideration denied; applicant failed to show Tribunal ignored accommodation requests before abandoning teleconference hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application after he hung up the phone during a summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to accommodate his mental health disabilities by not holding an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not requested an in-person hearing prior to the summary hearing and that his accommodation requests regarding timing had been met.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

Matthews v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2016 HRTO 1112

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 16, 2016

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Autumn Johnny v. Ivanhoe Cambridge II, 2016 HRTO 1092

Mireille Khoraych

14 cases2010–2016

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice10 cases2009–2022

Human rights application dismissed under section 45.1 as substance was resolved in union grievance settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin following his termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, including delay and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was timely but dismissed it under section 45.1, as the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with and settled through the union grievance process.

Paul v. King Edward Realty Inc., 2016 HRTO 1088

Mathias Link

Naomi Overend

Request to amend application granted and deferral denied after applicant withdrew overlapping workplace grievances.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of ongoing discrimination and harassment.

The respondent opposed the amendments and requested that the Application be deferred, arguing the new allegations were the subject of ongoing workplace grievances.

The applicant subsequently withdrew his grievances, indicating his intent to pursue the matters exclusively before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal declined to defer the Application to the grievance process and granted the applicant's request to amend his Application, directing the respondent to file its Response.

Robert Weeden v. Sobeys Inc., 2016 HRTO 1090

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently settled a related grievance.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis of a full and final release.

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

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

Powell v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2016 HRTO 1085

Naomi Overend

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence directing them to advise of their intentions regarding the application.

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

M.J. v. Renfrew County District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1089

Matthew Demeo

13 cases2013–2017

Naomi Overend

Application reactivated and amended on consent; request for early document production denied as premature.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application following the conclusion of another proceeding, to amend her application, and for early production of documents.

The respondents consented to the reactivation and amendment but opposed the production request.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and amendment but denied the request for early production as premature, noting that Rule 16 is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, which had not yet occurred.

Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp., 2016 HRTO 1084

Brenda Culbert

32 cases2011–2017

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 12, 2016

Application for pregnancy discrimination dismissed; termination during probation was based on performance, not pregnancy.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employment as a software development manager was terminated during her probationary period, shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy.

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to the applicant's lack of technical and management skills required for the fast-paced start-up environment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination and that the applicant failed to establish that her pregnancy was a factor in the decision.

The application was dismissed.

Abrams v. Kupar, 2016 HRTO 1082

Harold Rolph

3 cases2013–2016

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 10, 2016

Human rights application dismissed under s. 45.1 as the substance was dealt with in grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her request for prayer breaks and unfairly targeted her for discipline.

The applicant had also filed grievances regarding the same issues, which were heard by an arbitrator who issued an award addressing the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

Nuria Abdosh v. North York General Hospital, 2016 HRTO 1063

David Gourlay

34 cases2010–2017

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 4, 2016

Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to prove he submitted documents before application was abandoned.

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

He claimed he had submitted a Form 10 prior to the dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not send anything prior to the decision being issued, noting discrepancies in the emails provided as evidence.

The applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established case law, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 1035

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 3, 2016

Indefinite adjournment denied; six-month adjournment granted for applicant to provide further medical evidence regarding fitness to participate.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of the hearing due to a health condition that her doctors claimed prevented her from participating in a conventional adversarial process.

The respondents opposed the request, citing the delay and the need to test the applicant's evidence through cross-examination.

The Tribunal denied the indefinite adjournment but granted a six-month adjournment, ordering the applicant to provide further medical reports addressing her future ability to participate in a verbal hearing.

Royeton v. Toronto District School Board, 2016 HRTO 1021

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 applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning of potential abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Timothy Cook v. Simcoe Parts Service Inc., 2016 HRTO 1014

Naomi Overend

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

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 was directed to respond but failed to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Osei Bonsu v. United Steelworkers International Union and United Steelworkers Local 5296, 2016 HRTO 1017

Naomi Overend

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

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 respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Benstead v. 2415050 Ontario Inc., 2016 HRTO 1019

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 sent multiple letters requesting dates to reschedule a mediation, and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Ronald Lavand v. Confederation College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2016 HRTO 1013

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 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.

Scott Van Ryswyk v. Integra Document Destruction, 2016 HRTO 1018

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 29, 2016

Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant failed to establish grounds under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She alleged breaches of procedural fairness, including ignored requests for transcription of handwritten documents, exposure to scents by opposing counsel, and adjudicator bias.

The Tribunal found no breach of procedural fairness, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and concluded the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

Myers v. William Osler Health System, 2016 HRTO 1005

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 28, 2016

Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to establish new determinative evidence or extraordinary circumstances.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for failing to establish discrimination.

The applicant alleged omissions in the decision and that a paralegal had kept her file for a week.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new determinative facts or evidence, and no compelling or extraordinary circumstances that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

Patrice Chisholm v. York Catholic District School Board and Casey Cabral, 2016 HRTO 998

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 27, 2016

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as reprisal for union activity is not protected under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal, claiming he was subjected to unfair treatment and fired for advocating on behalf of union members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to link the alleged bullying to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and confused protections under the Labour Relations Act with those under the Code.

As there was no allegation that the applicant was claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Mohammad Shabbeer v. Aaroport Limousine Services, 2016 HRTO 992

Mathias Link

In Private Practice10 cases2009–2022

Naomi Overend