Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 28, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to jurisdictional notice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the issues in dispute were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

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

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

Sangar Asaippillai v. Celeste Desa, 2015 HRTO 1004

Naomi Overend

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

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

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates from the applicant, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to two letters.

The Application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Antonios Sarrigiannis v. The Greek Community of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 1001

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's status inquiry.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Dunne v. Gulbinowicz, 2015 HRTO 997

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed; applicant failed to establish prima facie case of disability discrimination.

The applicant, who briefly held paid and volunteer positions with the respondent food cooperative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent did not return him to his former job after wrist surgery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's paid positions were temporary and had either expired or been eliminated.

Furthermore, the applicant had voluntarily resigned from his duties and the relationship had broken down due to mutual mistrust.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

Bradley Kerr v. Collingwood Community Food Co-operative Inc., 2015 HRTO 967

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay; applicant failed to establish good faith for three-year delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred three years prior to filing.

The applicant argued the limitation period should run from the date an Employment Standards Officer declined to issue an order, but the Tribunal found this did not constitute an act of discrimination.

As the applicant provided no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed.

Mba Menie v. Head 2 Head Recruitment Solutions, 2015 HRTO 957

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for union grievance is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for his union to pursue a grievance.

The Tribunal held that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Bachan v. Esab Canada, 2015 HRTO 956

Naomi Overend

Request to amend human rights application granted; request for document production denied as premature.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the grounds of reprisal, marital status, and age, and to seek production of documents.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application given the early stage of proceedings and lack of objection.

The request for document production was denied as premature, as the time for mandatory disclosure had not yet occurred.

Mashhood Siddiqui v. Can-Pro Tools Inc. and Zia Khan, 2015 HRTO 955

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for over six-year delay without a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application over six years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ignorance of the filing process, mental health issues, visual impairment, and poor English skills.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or evidence supporting his claims, noting that ignorance of the means to pursue rights does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Kim v. Independent Learning Centre (ILC), 2015 HRTO 954

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent college more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ignorance of the Tribunal's process, mental health issues, visual impairment, language barriers, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the process and ongoing internal resolution attempts do not justify missing the statutory deadline.

The application was dismissed.

Hyun Whan Kim v. Seneca College, 2015 HRTO 953

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for five-year delay without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent university five years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to ignorance of the filing process, mental health issues, visual impairment, language barriers, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation or medical evidence supporting the five-year delay, and dismissed the application as it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit.

Hyun Whan Kim v. York University, 2015 HRTO 952

Naomi Overend

Adjournment denied where late notice of hearing resulted from respondent's failure to update mailing address.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, claiming late receipt of the Notice of Hearing left it with inadequate time to prepare.

The applicant objected, noting the late notice resulted from the respondent's failure to provide an updated mailing address.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the respondent failed to comply with Rule 1.13 requiring parties to update contact information, and noting the respondent appeared ready to proceed.

Darrell Villa v. MARO Direct Marketing Inc., 2015 HRTO 918

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice3 cases2015–2023

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

Heena Beg-Mirza v. PDH Group Inc., 2015 HRTO 914

Kate Kahn

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 1, 2015

Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior ESA settlement did not address discrimination allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA claim for termination and severance pay did not address the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a wage disparity allegation, but denied his premature request for early production of payroll documents.

DaSilva v. Ron Mahon Equipment Limited, 2015 HRTO 712

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Case Assessment Direction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to take steps to lift a court-ordered stay related to the respondent's insolvency.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

Attal v. Target Canada, 2015 HRTO 710

Naomi Overend

Motion to amend human rights application to add reprisal ground granted.

The applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the ground of reprisal based on events occurring after the initial filing.

The respondents did not file responses to the requests.

Given the early stage of the proceedings, the nature of the amendments, and the lack of objection, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend.

Adamsu v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 997, 2015 HRTO 709

Naomi Overend

Contravention of settlement application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to notice.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

Indrani Wikkrematileke v. York Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 708

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 28, 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 (NOID) on the basis that 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.

Lawrence Sloan v. Sarnia Chris Hadfield Airport and Mike Roberts, 2015 HRTO 700

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 19, 2015

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, which was deferred pending the resolution of a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Desmond Ulett v. Egan Visual Inc. and Irene Stund, 2015 HRTO 650

Naomi Overend

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

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

The Tribunal sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

Crystal Powell v. Rob Carter, 2015 HRTO 646

Naomi Overend

Employment and Labour Law

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of an Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the other proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Currie v. Charm Diamond Centers, 2015 HRTO 642

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 OntarioJul 28, 2015

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to jurisdictional notice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the issues in dispute were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

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

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

Sangar Asaippillai v. Celeste Desa, 2015 HRTO 1004

Naomi Overend

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

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

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested status updates from the applicant, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to two letters.

The Application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Antonios Sarrigiannis v. The Greek Community of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 1001

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's status inquiry.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Dunne v. Gulbinowicz, 2015 HRTO 997

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJul 21, 2015

Human rights application dismissed; applicant failed to establish prima facie case of disability discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's paid positions were temporary and had either expired or been eliminated.

Furthermore, the applicant had voluntarily resigned from his duties and the relationship had broken down due to mutual mistrust.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

Bradley Kerr v. Collingwood Community Food Co-operative Inc., 2015 HRTO 967

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay; applicant failed to establish good faith for three-year delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred three years prior to filing.

As the applicant provided no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed.

Mba Menie v. Head 2 Head Recruitment Solutions, 2015 HRTO 957

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for union grievance is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for his union to pursue a grievance.

The Tribunal held that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Bachan v. Esab Canada, 2015 HRTO 956

Naomi Overend

Request to amend human rights application granted; request for document production denied as premature.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the grounds of reprisal, marital status, and age, and to seek production of documents.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application given the early stage of proceedings and lack of objection.

The request for document production was denied as premature, as the time for mandatory disclosure had not yet occurred.

Mashhood Siddiqui v. Can-Pro Tools Inc. and Zia Khan, 2015 HRTO 955

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for over six-year delay without a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application over six years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ignorance of the filing process, mental health issues, visual impairment, and poor English skills.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Kim v. Independent Learning Centre (ILC), 2015 HRTO 954

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent college more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ignorance of the Tribunal's process, mental health issues, visual impairment, language barriers, and fear of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

Hyun Whan Kim v. Seneca College, 2015 HRTO 953

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed for five-year delay without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent university five years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to ignorance of the filing process, mental health issues, visual impairment, language barriers, and fear of reprisal.

Hyun Whan Kim v. York University, 2015 HRTO 952

Naomi Overend

Adjournment denied where late notice of hearing resulted from respondent's failure to update mailing address.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, claiming late receipt of the Notice of Hearing left it with inadequate time to prepare.

The applicant objected, noting the late notice resulted from the respondent's failure to provide an updated mailing address.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the respondent failed to comply with Rule 1.13 requiring parties to update contact information, and noting the respondent appeared ready to proceed.

Darrell Villa v. MARO Direct Marketing Inc., 2015 HRTO 918

Naomi Overend

In Private Practice3 cases2015–2023

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

Heena Beg-Mirza v. PDH Group Inc., 2015 HRTO 914

Kate Kahn

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJun 1, 2015

Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior ESA settlement did not address discrimination allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESA claim for termination and severance pay did not address the substance of the discrimination allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a wage disparity allegation, but denied his premature request for early production of payroll documents.

DaSilva v. Ron Mahon Equipment Limited, 2015 HRTO 712

Naomi Overend

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Case Assessment Direction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to take steps to lift a court-ordered stay related to the respondent's insolvency.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

Attal v. Target Canada, 2015 HRTO 710

Naomi Overend

Motion to amend human rights application to add reprisal ground granted.

The applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the ground of reprisal based on events occurring after the initial filing.

The respondents did not file responses to the requests.

Given the early stage of the proceedings, the nature of the amendments, and the lack of objection, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend.

Adamsu v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 997, 2015 HRTO 709

Naomi Overend

Contravention of settlement application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to notice.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

Indrani Wikkrematileke v. York Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 708

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 28, 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 (NOID) on the basis that 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.

Lawrence Sloan v. Sarnia Chris Hadfield Airport and Mike Roberts, 2015 HRTO 700

Naomi Overend

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMay 19, 2015

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, which was deferred pending the resolution of a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Desmond Ulett v. Egan Visual Inc. and Irene Stund, 2015 HRTO 650

Naomi Overend

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

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

The Tribunal sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

Crystal Powell v. Rob Carter, 2015 HRTO 646

Naomi Overend