Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 18, 2015

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 and a subsequent follow-up letter.

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

Michael Loranger v. KGHM International, Sudbury Mining Operations, 2015 HRTO 1559

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 17, 2015

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

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

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the respondent advised that the other proceeding was settled, the Tribunal sent multiple letters and emails to the applicant requesting an update and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any communications.

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

Jenny Anderson v. The Child and Family Centre, 2015 HRTO 1553

Naomi Overend

Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

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

Maria Rots v. Toronto Shelter Support and Housing Administration, 2015 HRTO 1552

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 extended deadline.

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

Robert Brown v. Golf Club Grill, 2015 HRTO 1547

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal issued a notice directing the applicant to advise of his intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Purcell v. Canadian Threadall Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1548

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sent the applicant a Registrar's letter and a follow-up email requesting submissions pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond by the specified deadlines.

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

Krystal Dayton v. A Natural Advantage / Skin Vitality, 2015 HRTO 1545

Karen J. Sanchez

22 cases2013–2026

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 3, 2015

Request for reconsideration dismissed; awaiting internal investigation does not justify delay in filing application.

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

She argued that the delay was justified because she was awaiting the conclusion of an internal investigation by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, reaffirming established case law that waiting for an internal investigation to conclude does not generally constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing an application.

Boyd v. McMaster University, 2015 HRTO 1472

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 23, 2015

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

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a reply, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a follow-up email and letter.

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

Claudia Hurtado v. Mantler Management, 2015 HRTO 1418

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 23, 2015

Respondents deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline and ignored a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove her case and seek remedies.

Ashley Maurer v. Pursuit Wellness Inc. and Pursuit Athletics Inc., 2015 HRTO 1419

Human rights applications dismissed for abuse of process after applicant repeatedly refused to schedule hearing dates.

The respondents requested that three consolidated human rights applications be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Tribunal's scheduling process, failed to provide available hearing dates, and insisted on self-imposed conditions before participating.

Despite multiple warnings and opportunities to comply with Tribunal directions, the applicant continued to thwart the process.

The Tribunal found that allowing the applications to continue would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed all three applications.

Surh v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 1410

Naomi Overend

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was initially deferred pending a civil proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on the respondents' request to reactivate and dismiss the application under section 45.1.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

Dianna Labranche v. Board of Directors of Simcoe Condominium Corporation No. 89, Bayshore Property Management and Hodis Law, 2015 HRTO 1413

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 communications to the applicant requesting dates to reschedule a summary hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the correspondence.

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

Coralie Perkins-Aboagye v. Ottawa Police Services and Sandra Sparling, 2015 HRTO 1408

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 Kassee v. Jan Pro Cleaning Systems, 2015 HRTO 1416

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.

Bilel Hamouda v. Jan Pro Cleaning Systems, 2015 HRTO 1415

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 the applicant to provide dates to reschedule a hearing and confirm her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Jocilene Thompson v. Gaba Sargit, 2015 HRTO 1414

Ian Gardner

1 case2015–2015

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 21, 2015

Adjournment request denied as last-minute retention of representative does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the recent retention of a new representative, the need to summons witnesses, and the need to transcribe handwritten notes.

The respondents opposed the request and sought an order for the applicant to provide a tabbed book of documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the last-minute retention of a representative did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to deliver a tabbed book of documents to the respondents and the Tribunal.

Myers v. William Osler Health System, 2015 HRTO 1407

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 14, 2015

Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to connect alleged housing harassment to Code grounds.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original application alleged harassment in housing based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal, but failed to connect the alleged conduct to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration, as her submissions merely mirrored those previously considered.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Lin v. Li, 2015 HRTO 1368

Dana Fuller

2 cases2015–2015

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioOct 2, 2015

Application dismissed; complaints about late pay cheques do not constitute reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against her in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code after she complained about a delayed pay cheque.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's concerns related to the unreliability of pay cheques and the threat of job loss, which do not constitute discrimination or reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Karen Wilson v. Canada Loyal Insurance Agency Limited, 2015 HRTO 1309

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioSep 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to link alleged harassment to Code grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The applicant's response reiterated her allegations without establishing a nexus to the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter was not within its jurisdiction.

Lin v. Qing Qing Li, 2015 HRTO 1252

Naomi Overend