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

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 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

Mireille Khoraych

14 cases2010–2016

Naomi Overend

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

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice13 cases2013–2017

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

Matthew Demeo

Naomi Overend

Not Practising Law - Employed32 cases2011–2017

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

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

Practising Law - Employed34 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 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 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

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.

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 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

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

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 26, 2016

Deferred human rights application reactivated to allow consideration of request to amend.

The applicant requested to reactivate and amend his human rights application, which had been deferred pending union grievances.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing that the proposed amendments were the subject of ongoing grievances.

The Tribunal held that it could not rule on the request to amend until the application was reactivated.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and set a schedule for the respondent to make submissions on the proposed amendments and for the applicant to provide proof that his grievances had been withdrawn.

Weeden v. Sobeys Inc., 2016 HRTO 978

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

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

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 attend mediation or respond to correspondence.

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

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

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

Mireille Khoraych

14 cases2010–2016

Naomi Overend

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.

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

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice13 cases2013–2017

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

Matthew Demeo

Naomi Overend

Not Practising Law - Employed32 cases2011–2017

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

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

Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp., 2016 HRTO 1084

Brenda Culbert

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioAug 12, 2016

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

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

David Gourlay

Practising Law - Employed34 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.

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 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 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

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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

Naomi Overend