Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioNov 18, 2015

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

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting submissions on the impact of the applicant's bankruptcy on her status to bring the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the inquiries.

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

McIntyre v. Access Restoration Services Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1558

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 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 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 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

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

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

Naomi Overend

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

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

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

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 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

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

Karen J. Sanchez

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for internal investigation does not constitute good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a discriminatory lay-off that occurred outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process and an internal employer investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that waiting for other legal proceedings or internal investigations to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing an application.

Boyd v. McMaster University, 2015 HRTO 1255

Naomi Overend

Employment and Labour Law

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

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

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 OntarioNov 18, 2015

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the inquiries.

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

McIntyre v. Access Restoration Services Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1558

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.

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 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 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 for abandonment after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

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.

Boyd v. McMaster University, 2015 HRTO 1472

Naomi Overend

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.

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

Naomi Overend

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

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

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice12 cases2011–2015

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 Calla

32 cases2009–2017

Lisa C. Cabel

David A. Gourlay

37 cases2010–2026

Antonella Ceddia

Practising Law - Employed42 cases2008–2017

Naomi Overend

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 correspondence.

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

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

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 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

Karen J. Sanchez

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for internal investigation does not constitute good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a discriminatory lay-off that occurred outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process and an internal employer investigation.

Boyd v. McMaster University, 2015 HRTO 1255

Naomi Overend