Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 3, 2010

Tribunal declines to order disclosure of privileged student record prior to respondent filing its Response.

The respondent school board requested an order compelling the applicant's next friend to consent to the disclosure of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) so it could prepare its Response to a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal declined to make the order at this preliminary stage, noting that the parties' obligations to disclose arguably relevant documents had not yet been triggered.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response, with leave to amend later if necessary, and the applicant's next friend was directed to state in writing whether she consents to the OSR's disclosure.

Thomas v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 484

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over court judgments, opposing counsel, and former spouses.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging a court judgment, the conduct of opposing counsel in a family law proceeding, and his former spouse.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction, which he failed to do.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Code does not cover the outcomes of adjudicative processes, the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party, or the relationship between former spouses.

Lionel Magumbe v. Ministry of Attorney General, Charmaine Magume and Jane Rutherford, 2010 HRTO 474

Sherry Liang

Request to expedite proceedings dismissed as applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by Legal Aid Ontario regarding the cancellation or denial of legal aid certificates.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing the urgent need for legal representation in upcoming matters before other tribunals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would justify giving the application priority over other matters.

Steven McKinnon v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2010 HRTO 473

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

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

The facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

Both the applicant and the corporate respondent agreed to defer the application.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant must provide accurate contact information for the individual respondent if the application is brought back on.

Beker v. ACCES Employment, 2010 HRTO 471

Sherry Liang

Tribunal declined to defer human rights application to grievance process and granted union's intervention request.

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the Application to the grievance process and whether to grant the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal decided to proceed with the Application, noting that no party sought deferral and it was unclear if the human rights issues were part of the grievance process or if the grievance would proceed to arbitration.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

Laura Pryse v. Community Living Dufferin, 2010 HRTO 469

Sherry Liang

Adjournment request to seek legal representation denied due to prior opportunities and delay concerns.

The complainant's litigation guardian requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain legal representation, alleging that documents provided by the respondent during cross-examination had been altered.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the litigation guardian had ample opportunity to review the documents, which had been disclosed months prior, and had previously agreed to proceed with the Commission's counsel presenting the case.

Granting the adjournment would unduly delay the expeditious resolution of the complaint.

Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 462

Sherry Liang

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 subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

Andy Chinfatt v. W.T. Lynch Foods Ltd., 2010 HRTO 456

Sherry Liang

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, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

Waris Khan v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 454

Sherry Liang

Human rights application allowed to proceed to service despite delay due to alleged medical conditions.

The applicant filed a human rights application after the one-year time limit.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by medical conditions, including depression, confusion, and memory loss, which affected her ability to complete the application accurately.

The Tribunal applied the 'plain and obvious' test and found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents, noting that the respondents could still raise the issue of delay.

Veloris Brooks v. North York General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 453

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 26, 2010

Tribunal deferred complainant's request for earlier hearing dates pending outcome of mediation.

Following a Case Conference Hearing, the parties agreed to new hearing dates in September 2010.

The complainant subsequently requested earlier hearing dates.

The Tribunal deferred addressing the request to re-schedule, directing the parties to consult on outstanding procedural issues if the upcoming mediation does not resolve the complaint.

Jemila Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair, 2010 HRTO 450

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 25, 2010

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for other proceedings is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by the Peel Regional Police Services, more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued he was waiting for other agencies, including the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to conclude their investigations before filing.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings does not generally constitute a valid explanation for delay and that the applicant had reason to inquire about his rights under the Code much earlier.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Simon v. Peel Regional Police Services, 2010 HRTO 433

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred on consent pending completion of grievance proceedings.

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

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of grievance proceedings and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

June Coughlin v. Corporation of the City of Belleville, 2010 HRTO 427

Sherry Liang

Request to add a respondent denied where no allegations of Code violations were made against them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent physician terminated their physician-patient relationship due to the applicant's disability and sexual orientation.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to add another physician as a respondent, based on a statement in the respondent's reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant made no allegations against the proposed respondent that could support a finding of a Code violation.

Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre, 2010 HRTO 421

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file directed submissions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to re-state her allegations and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required submissions within the specified time.

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

Baker v. Kingston General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 420

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal on consent of the parties.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Walter Beevor v. Ashland Canada Corporation, 2010 HRTO 414

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondents.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Steele III v. Global Spectrum Facility Management Limited, 2010 HRTO 413

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 22, 2010

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Fred Albi.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Meleca v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2010 HRTO 395

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 19, 2010

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance process.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance process involving the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, consistent with its normal approach to concurrent proceedings.

Banks v. Bluewater Health, 2010 HRTO 389

Sherry Liang

Request to add Chief of Police as a respondent to human rights complaint granted.

The complainant filed a Request for Order to add the Chief of Police as a respondent to her human rights complaint against the police services board.

The Tribunal granted the request, with reasons to follow.

The previously scheduled hearing dates were cancelled, and a Case Conference Hearing was scheduled to determine the next steps in the proceeding.

Jemila Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 372

Sherry Liang

Employment and Labour Law

Tribunal directed parties to provide written submissions on the status of a disputed settlement agreement.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding three applications, including a transition application, a regular application, and an application for contravention of settlement.

The applicants had signed Minutes of Settlement, but subsequently filed a breach of settlement application requesting that one applicant's name and claim be removed from the Minutes.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the applications had been resolved by the settlement, whether the respondents were prepared to carry out the terms, and how the Tribunal should proceed.

Aboagye v. Business Depot, 2010 HRTO 371

Applicant

Zvonimir BasicSelf-represented
1 appearance
Keyvan NourhaghighiSelf-represented
1 appearance

Counsel

Leola PonCounsel
1 appearance
Marnie BacherCounsel
1 appearance
Sarah EvesCounsel
1 appearance
Michael TorrenceCounsel
1 appearance
Grant BowersCounsel
1 appearance
Cathy PikeCounsel
1 appearance
Kate HughesCounsel
1 appearance
Mandy WojcikCounsel
1 appearance
Jill Van VugtCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Corporate Respondent and Personal Respondent

Steven WilliamsCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Ontario Human Rights Commission

Brian SmithCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for Queen’s University

Ashley BrownCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Affected Party

Melany V. FranklinCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Commission

Sharon AbrahamsCounsel
2 appearances
Kikee MalikCounsel
1 appearance
Sharon Ffolkes-AbrahamsCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Intervenor

David ButtCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent

Robert J. BaldwinCounsel
2 appearances
Kate WatersCounsel
1 appearance
Brenda BowlbyCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondents

Frances S. BrennanCounsel
1 appearance
Grant BowersCounsel
1 appearance

Counsel for the Respondent The Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation

Jennifer RichardsCounsel
1 appearance

for Casino Rama Services, Aaron Johnston, Valerie Spurgeon, Debra Pratt, Sandy Emms, Stacey Beaver, Steven Chase

Donna D’AndreaCounsel
1 appearance

for Claybrooke Inc. and Claybrooke Marketing Inc.

Ian HarveyAgent
1 appearance

for Durham Catholic District School Board, Andy J. Fedak and Susan Duane

Dolores BarbiniCounsel
1 appearance

for Durham Regional Police Service and Police Constable Foote

Sheila SchweizerCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and proposed respondents

Sarah WrightCounsel
1 appearance
Robin BasuCounsel
1 appearance
Bruce EllisCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General (observer)

Vanessa GlasserAgent
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Children and Youth Services

Anna RaimondoCounsel
1 appearance

for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Matthew HornerCounsel
1 appearance

for herself

Catherine VelkersSelf-represented
1 appearance
Coralie JudahSelf-represented
1 appearance

for Kofi Aboagye

Coralie JudahAgent
1 appearance

for Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Centre, Alejandra Dubois and Sue Horrocks

John Paul ZubecCounsel
1 appearance

for the Appellants

Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the applicant

Bill PetrieUnion representative
1 appearance
Margaret LeightonCounsel
1 appearance
Gloria RowsellAgent
1 appearance
L. A. RichmondCounsel
1 appearance
Frances SobodaUnion representative
1 appearance

for the Applicant

Achille John RuffoloSelf-represented
4 appearances
Zvonimir BasicSelf-represented
4 appearances
Gloria RamnathSelf-represented
3 appearances
Richard MillerCounsel
3 appearances
Glen MorrisonAgent
2 appearances
Pierre MercierAgent
2 appearances
Nacon DiobaSelf-represented
2 appearances
Yvette LemieuxSelf-represented
2 appearances
Raj PannuSelf-represented
2 appearances
Jeff WilsonSelf-represented
2 appearances
Jason KranzSelf-represented
2 appearances
Elizabeth MaurerSelf-represented
2 appearances
Elle VenholaCounsel
2 appearances
Susan WatersSelf-represented
2 appearances
Tai NguyenSelf-represented
2 appearances
Ebaita OkunboSelf-represented
2 appearances
Self-representedSelf-represented
2 appearances
Mukesh ChopraSelf-represented
2 appearances
Juliet L. KnaptonCounsel
2 appearances
Phillip PattersonSelf-represented
2 appearances

for the Applicant/Claimants

Kate StephensonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Applicants

Karen McArthurCounsel
1 appearance
Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the College

Bernard C. LeBlancCounsel
3 appearances
Debra McKennaCounsel
2 appearances
Emily GrahamCounsel
2 appearances
Justine WongCounsel
2 appearances
Kenzie BuntingCounsel
2 appearances
Ahmad MozaffariCounsel
2 appearances
Joanna BirenbaumCounsel
2 appearances
Amanda ByrdCounsel
1 appearance
Renée KoppCounsel
1 appearance
Victoria CistroneCounsel
1 appearance
Enniael StairCounsel
1 appearance
Carly WaisglassCounsel
1 appearance
Elisabeth WidnerCounsel
1 appearance
Bernard LeBlancCounsel
1 appearance

for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Michelle GibbsCounsel
1 appearance

for the Commission

Raj DhirCounsel
2 appearances
Sharon Ffolkes-AbrahamsCounsel
1 appearance
Sheena ScottCounsel
1 appearance
Yavar HameedCounsel
1 appearance
Christine ElwellCounsel
1 appearance
Christine EllwellCounsel
1 appearance
Anthony D. GriffinCounsel
1 appearance
Megan Evans MaxwellCounsel
1 appearance

for the complainant

Marinac-JafferAgent
1 appearance

for the Complainant

Robert DavisSelf-represented
3 appearances
J.L.C.Self-represented
1 appearance
Jacqueline Lewis-CampbellAgent
1 appearance
Fran Marinic-JafferAgent
1 appearance
Russell JarvisSelf-represented
1 appearance
Michelle DavidsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jacques PerronSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the Complainant Andy Carson

Paula Soares-CarsonAgent
1 appearance

for the Complainant Dylan Sigrist

Lori SigristAgent
1 appearance

for the COSTI Corvetti Centre, COSTI Board and two individual respondents

Marnie BaizleyCounsel
1 appearance

for the COSTI Corvetti Centre, COSTI Board and two individual respondents (observer)

Marnie BaizleyCounsel
1 appearance

for the Employer

Susan MunnCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervener

Howard GoldblattCounsel
1 appearance

for the Intervenor

Teresa GianfeliceCounsel
1 appearance
Carolyn HartCounsel
1 appearance
James K. McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance
Jane GoodingCounsel
1 appearance
Mark WrightCounsel
1 appearance

for the London District Catholic School Board and individual respondents

Melanie WarnerCounsel
1 appearance
Eric RoherCounsel
1 appearance

for the Ontario Human Rights Commission

Sharon Ffolkes AbrahamsCounsel
1 appearance
Kikee MalikCounsel
1 appearance
Raj DhirCounsel
1 appearance

for the proposed Respondent

Bruce EllisCounsel
1 appearance

for the registrant

Andrew McKennaCounsel
2 appearances
Ruba El-SayeghCounsel
1 appearance
Nabiel DawoodCounsel
1 appearance
Reema ZaiaCounsel
1 appearance
Alexa Banister-ThompsonCounsel
1 appearance
Crystal GillisCounsel
1 appearance
Reem ZaiaCounsel
1 appearance
Wudassie TamratCounsel
1 appearance
Niiti SimmondsCounsel
1 appearance
Carina LentschCounsel
1 appearance
Melissa PradaCounsel
1 appearance
Jennifer McKendryCounsel
1 appearance
Charles PainterCounsel
1 appearance
Mario DelgadoCounsel
1 appearance
Sahar AliCounsel
1 appearance

for the Registrant

Noah MugenyiSelf-represented
1 appearance
Nidal SaloumSelf-represented
1 appearance

for the respondent

Christina JonasAgent
1 appearance
Allan R. WeirAgent
1 appearance
Jon C. ButlerAgent
1 appearance
F. G. HamiltonCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent

Gurjit BrarCounsel
3 appearances
Beata KratiukSelf-represented
2 appearances
Brenda BowlbyCounsel
2 appearances
R. Paul MarshallCounsel
2 appearances
Darragh MeagherCounsel
2 appearances
Robert DunfordCounsel
1 appearance
Michael S. RichardsCounsel
1 appearance
Colin JohnstonCounsel
1 appearance
Jennifer BirrellCounsel
1 appearance
Jonathan DyeCounsel
1 appearance
Mark ZegaCounsel
1 appearance
Richard CampbellCounsel
1 appearance
Gordon WeirCounsel
1 appearance
Self-representedSelf-represented
1 appearance
Paula RuzakCounsel
1 appearance
David PickwoadCounsel
1 appearance
Claudia VicencioCounsel
1 appearance
Amandi EsonwanneCounsel
1 appearance
Dana McDonaldCounsel
1 appearance
Brenda GloverCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent, 481039 Ontario Ltd.

Evelyn LibrachAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Andy Gidwani

Meredith JonesCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent BAPS

Andrew PintoCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3902

Richard BlairCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent City of Toronto

Ansuya PachaiCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario

Mark WrightCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Expertech Network Installation Inc.

Susan CrawfordCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Metroland Media Group Inc.

Jason GreenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Metroland Media Group Inc. c.o.b. as The Hamilton Spectator

Jason GreenCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Labour Relations Board

Lisa AminAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondent Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

Susan UrselCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Patrice Barry

Chris TonksCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Peel District School Board

Roy C. FilionCounsel
2 appearances

for the Respondent Royal Health Care Centre

Dr. Kari EdmanAgent
1 appearance
Dr. Felix KlajnerAgent
1 appearance

for the Respondents

Donald G. KiddCounsel
4 appearances
Roy FilionCounsel
3 appearances
Grant BowersCounsel
2 appearances
Craig Vander ZeeCounsel
2 appearances
Ann DinnertCounsel
2 appearances
Elizabeth KeenanCounsel
1 appearance
Michael MartoshCounsel
1 appearance
Gita AnandCounsel
1 appearance
Heather McIvorCounsel
1 appearance
Melanie A. WarnerCounsel
1 appearance
Matthew CarrollCounsel
1 appearance
Howard GoldblattCounsel
1 appearance
Glorie AlfredCounsel
1 appearance
UnknownCounsel
1 appearance
Ida MartinCounsel
1 appearance
Rocky ValentiniSelf-represented
1 appearance
Ken StuebingCounsel
1 appearance
Melanie WarnerCounsel
1 appearance
David PatacairkCounsel
1 appearance
Gina Saccaccio BrannanCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, Local 87-M and Paul Morse

Mandy WojcikCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, Local 87-M (Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild) and Paul Morse

Mandy WojcikCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents English District Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, David Stechholz, and Jeffrey Miskus

Evan VanDykCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long Term Care, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of the Attorney General, and Ontario Human Rights Commission

Lisa AminCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents Le Conseil Scolaire de District Catholique Des Aurores Boréales and Roger Lepage

Kevin D. MacNeillCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondents The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, James Dicenso and John Kloppenborg

Catherine PetersCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent The Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation

George ParrisCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Gurjit BrarCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent York Region District School Board

Angela E. RaeCounsel
1 appearance

for the Respondent Yvonne Monto

Jeff RooneyAgent
1 appearance

for the Toronto Catholic District School Board and six individual respondents

Amy R. TibbleCounsel
2 appearances

for the Toronto Police Association

David ButtCounsel
1 appearance

for the Toronto Police Services Board

Robert J. BaldwinCounsel
1 appearance

for the Union

Robin GordonUnion representative
1 appearance

for William Blair, Chief of Police

Sie-Wing KhowCounsel
1 appearance

On behalf of the Elementary Teachers of Toronto

Martin LongUnion representative
1 appearance

On her own behalf

Jemila MacanovicSelf-represented
2 appearances
Michelle DavidsonSelf-represented
1 appearance
Susan WatersSelf-represented
1 appearance
Kimberley McHughSelf-represented
1 appearance
Lise D. PerthSelf-represented
1 appearance
Adèle MercierSelf-represented
1 appearance

On Her Own Behalf

Elizabeth MaurerSelf-represented
1 appearance
Jemila MacanovicSelf-represented
1 appearance

on his own behalf

Juan SolerSelf-represented
1 appearance

On his own behalf

Alain MartelSelf-represented
1 appearance
Prem KumarSelf-represented
1 appearance
John StansensSelf-represented
1 appearance
David YoungSelf-represented
1 appearance
John CvitkoSelf-represented
1 appearance
Don McDonaldSelf-represented
1 appearance

self-represented

Weifang ZhangSelf-represented
1 appearance
Aaron ShadSelf-represented
1 appearance

577

Decisions

Years active

Tribunals

1.4

cases/mo

HRTO543(94%)

IPCO12(2%)

OMTDT5(1%)

OPSDT4(1%)

ORPDT3(1%)

OCASPD3(1%)

OCPDT2(0%)

OPDT2(0%)

OGSB1(0%)

OASLPDT1(0%)

OLRB1(0%)

Decision types

motion

527

trial

appeal

costs

/Adjudicator

Sherry Liang — panel chair

Human Rights

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Health Law

Workplace Safety and Insurance Law

Landlord and Tenant

Real Estate Law

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Law

Workers' Compensation

Sherry Liang

panel chair·College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario·Since 1992

OCASPD OPDT OMTDT ORPDT OCPDT OASLPDT OPSDT HRTO IPCO OLRB OGSB

577

cases · 35 yrs · HRTO, IPCO, OMTDT, OPSDT, ORPDT, OCASPD, OCPDT, OPDT, OGSB, OASLPDT, OLRB

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

Vice-chair· 417Vice-chair· 61Adjudicator· 39Vice-Chair· 17panel chair· Chair· 17Adjudicator· 14Vice Chair· 5panel chair· 3

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioMar 3, 2010

Tribunal declines to order disclosure of privileged student record prior to respondent filing its Response.

The Tribunal declined to make the order at this preliminary stage, noting that the parties' obligations to disclose arguably relevant documents had not yet been triggered.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response, with leave to amend later if necessary, and the applicant's next friend was directed to state in writing whether she consents to the OSR's disclosure.

Thomas v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 484

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over court judgments, opposing counsel, and former spouses.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging a court judgment, the conduct of opposing counsel in a family law proceeding, and his former spouse.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction, which he failed to do.

Lionel Magumbe v. Ministry of Attorney General, Charmaine Magume and Jane Rutherford, 2010 HRTO 474

Sherry Liang

Request to expedite proceedings dismissed as applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by Legal Aid Ontario regarding the cancellation or denial of legal aid certificates.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing the urgent need for legal representation in upcoming matters before other tribunals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would justify giving the application priority over other matters.

Steven McKinnon v. Legal Aid Ontario, 2010 HRTO 473

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance proceeding.

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

The facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

Both the applicant and the corporate respondent agreed to defer the application.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant must provide accurate contact information for the individual respondent if the application is brought back on.

Beker v. ACCES Employment, 2010 HRTO 471

Sherry Liang

Tribunal declined to defer human rights application to grievance process and granted union's intervention request.

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the Application to the grievance process and whether to grant the union's request to intervene.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

Laura Pryse v. Community Living Dufferin, 2010 HRTO 469

Sherry Liang

Adjournment request to seek legal representation denied due to prior opportunities and delay concerns.

Granting the adjournment would unduly delay the expeditious resolution of the complaint.

Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 462

Sherry Liang

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 subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

Andy Chinfatt v. W.T. Lynch Foods Ltd., 2010 HRTO 456

Sherry Liang

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, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

Waris Khan v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 454

Sherry Liang

Human rights application allowed to proceed to service despite delay due to alleged medical conditions.

The applicant filed a human rights application after the one-year time limit.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by medical conditions, including depression, confusion, and memory loss, which affected her ability to complete the application accurately.

The Tribunal applied the 'plain and obvious' test and found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents, noting that the respondents could still raise the issue of delay.

Veloris Brooks v. North York General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 453

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 26, 2010

Tribunal deferred complainant's request for earlier hearing dates pending outcome of mediation.

Following a Case Conference Hearing, the parties agreed to new hearing dates in September 2010.

The complainant subsequently requested earlier hearing dates.

The Tribunal deferred addressing the request to re-schedule, directing the parties to consult on outstanding procedural issues if the upcoming mediation does not resolve the complaint.

Jemila Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair, 2010 HRTO 450

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 25, 2010

Human rights application dismissed for delay; waiting for other proceedings is not a good faith explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by the Peel Regional Police Services, more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued he was waiting for other agencies, including the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to conclude their investigations before filing.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

Simon v. Peel Regional Police Services, 2010 HRTO 433

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred on consent pending completion of grievance proceedings.

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

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of grievance proceedings and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

June Coughlin v. Corporation of the City of Belleville, 2010 HRTO 427

Sherry Liang

Request to add a respondent denied where no allegations of Code violations were made against them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent physician terminated their physician-patient relationship due to the applicant's disability and sexual orientation.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to add another physician as a respondent, based on a statement in the respondent's reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant made no allegations against the proposed respondent that could support a finding of a Code violation.

Basic v. Royal Health Care Centre, 2010 HRTO 421

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file directed submissions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to re-state her allegations and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required submissions within the specified time.

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

Baker v. Kingston General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 420

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal on consent of the parties.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Walter Beevor v. Ashland Canada Corporation, 2010 HRTO 414

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondents.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Steele III v. Global Spectrum Facility Management Limited, 2010 HRTO 413

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 22, 2010

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Fred Albi.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Meleca v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2010 HRTO 395

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 19, 2010

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent union grievance process.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance process involving the same facts and human rights issues.

Banks v. Bluewater Health, 2010 HRTO 389

Sherry Liang

Request to add Chief of Police as a respondent to human rights complaint granted.

The complainant filed a Request for Order to add the Chief of Police as a respondent to her human rights complaint against the police services board.

The Tribunal granted the request, with reasons to follow.

The previously scheduled hearing dates were cancelled, and a Case Conference Hearing was scheduled to determine the next steps in the proceeding.

Jemila Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 372

Sherry Liang