Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 17, 2010

Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to establish criteria or substantiate allegations of bias.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, alleging bias by the adjudicator and disagreement with the findings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely re-stated arguments from the hearing and failed to establish any of the criteria required for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

Young v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 356

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 9, 2010

Interim remedy of part-time reinstatement denied as balance of harm favoured the employer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and other grounds after her employer denied her request for a part-time work arrangement to accommodate her childcare needs for a child with autism following her maternity leave.

The applicant sought an interim remedy of reinstatement to a part-time position pending the hearing of her application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the balance of harm did not favour granting the interim remedy and that the requested relief was not necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code, as monetary compensation or reinstatement could be awarded at the conclusion of the hearing if the application was successful.

Heidi Blutstein v. Ontario Realty Corporation, 2010 HRTO 307

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Lisa Windsor v. Westburne Ruddy, a Division of Rexel Canada Electrical Inc., 2010 HRTO 217

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn on consent of the parties.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Cabrera v. Ganz, 2010 HRTO 215

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 3, 2010

Tribunal schedules conference call to hear submissions on whether release bars human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual solicitation.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a Full and Final Release signed by the applicant.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing he signed the release under duress due to financial necessity.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call to hear submissions from the parties on the request for early dismissal.

Alain Martel v. North Shore Community Support Services Inc. and Anke Lanksy-Johnson, 2010 HRTO 254

Sherry Liang

Request for reconsideration dismissed; applicant's change of mind did not invalidate signed Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that removed several respondents from his human rights application, and a Request for an Order to add seven individuals as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5, as he presented no new determinative facts and his subsequent change of mind regarding signed Minutes of Settlement did not invalidate them.

The request to add six of the individuals was denied, while the addition of the seventh was deferred to a conference call to determine the validity of the provided contact address.

Davoud Tohidy v. Robert Mckenzie, Patti McConville and Julie Bruno, 2010 HRTO 247

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance process involving the same main events.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and family status.

The applicant had also filed two grievances under the collective agreement relating to the same main events.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application in accordance with its normal approach to concurrent proceedings.

Lam v. Commissionaires (Great Lakes), 2010 HRTO 243

Sherry Liang

Application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal sent the applicant a letter advising that failure to respond to directions within two weeks would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond within the specified time.

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

Craig Barton v. The John Howard Society of Toronto, Greg Rogers and David Raponi-Monk, 2010 HRTO 235

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to directions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week period.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Barton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 234

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to directions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

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

Craig Barton v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Victoria Peace, 2010 HRTO 233

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to directions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

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

Craig Barton v. Landlord and Tenant Board and Don Radford, 2010 HRTO 232

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 1, 2010

Request to expedite denied; financial and emotional pressures from job loss do not constitute urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, and subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the application.

The applicant argued that his former employer was filling his position, he could not obtain references, and he was suffering financial and emotional harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of being truly urgent to warrant an expedited process.

Arifahemad Patel v. Canon Canada Inc., Leena Nagapal and Cory Mariani, 2010 HRTO 230

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 25, 2010

Tribunal directed a conference call and ordered particulars on a request to dismiss an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin during his arrest by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The respondent filed a Request for Order seeking early dismissal of the application due to delay, lack of a prima facie case, and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed a conference call hearing to address the respondent's request and ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay and detailing the facts supporting his claim of discrimination.

John Cvitko v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police), 2010 HRTO 148

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 22, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide respondent's contact information.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent at the provided address.

The Tribunal requested further contact information from the applicant and warned that failure to provide it could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Tettero-Crosby v. Hood, 2010 HRTO 141

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 19, 2010

Tribunal waived 60-day time limit to re-activate human rights application following withdrawal of grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the outcome of related grievances.

After the grievances were withdrawn, the applicant failed to file a request to re-activate the application within the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had genuinely, albeit mistakenly, attempted to re-activate the application by informing the Tribunal of the conclusion of the grievances.

Finding that the prejudice to the respondents did not outweigh the applicant's interest in proceeding, the Tribunal waived the strict application of the time limit and allowed the application to be re-activated.

The applicant was directed to re-state her allegations of discrimination and reprisal clearly before the respondents were required to file responses.

Baker v. Kingston General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 122

Sherry Liang

Human rights application against WSIAT dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, based on a decision issued by one of its Vice-chairs.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that 'services' under the Human Rights Code does not include the adjudicative decisions of other statutory bodies, and that the doctrine of judicial immunity precludes applications against tribunals based on the execution of their adjudicative duties.

Higginson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2010 HRTO 111

Sherry Liang

Tribunal removes individual respondents and declines to add union representative to human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to a failure to accommodate his drug addiction.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether to remove nine individual respondents and whether to add the applicant's union representative as a respondent.

The Tribunal removed the nine individuals, finding the corporate respondent would be deemed liable for their actions and could provide an adequate remedy.

The Tribunal declined to add the union representative, finding the allegations against him did not provide a basis for a claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The union was granted leave to intervene.

Dubbin v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems, 2010 HRTO 110

Sherry Liang

Human rights application reactivated and amended following settlement of related grievances.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after related grievances were resolved pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The settlement did not resolve the human rights application.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to remove two individual respondents and add a new individual respondent.

Maureen McGillivray v. Algoma University, 2010 HRTO 108

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondent.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Miles v. Setnyk, 2010 HRTO 92

Sherry Liang

Employment and Labour Law

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Lorne MacKenzie v. City of London, 2010 HRTO 91

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 OntarioFeb 17, 2010

Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to establish criteria or substantiate allegations of bias.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, alleging bias by the adjudicator and disagreement with the findings.

Young v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 356

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 9, 2010

Interim remedy of part-time reinstatement denied as balance of harm favoured the employer.

The applicant sought an interim remedy of reinstatement to a part-time position pending the hearing of her application.

Heidi Blutstein v. Ontario Realty Corporation, 2010 HRTO 307

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Lisa Windsor v. Westburne Ruddy, a Division of Rexel Canada Electrical Inc., 2010 HRTO 217

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn on consent of the parties.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Cabrera v. Ganz, 2010 HRTO 215

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 3, 2010

Tribunal schedules conference call to hear submissions on whether release bars human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual solicitation.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a Full and Final Release signed by the applicant.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing he signed the release under duress due to financial necessity.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call to hear submissions from the parties on the request for early dismissal.

Alain Martel v. North Shore Community Support Services Inc. and Anke Lanksy-Johnson, 2010 HRTO 254

Sherry Liang

Request for reconsideration dismissed; applicant's change of mind did not invalidate signed Minutes of Settlement.

The request to add six of the individuals was denied, while the addition of the seventh was deferred to a conference call to determine the validity of the provided contact address.

Davoud Tohidy v. Robert Mckenzie, Patti McConville and Julie Bruno, 2010 HRTO 247

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance process involving the same main events.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and family status.

The applicant had also filed two grievances under the collective agreement relating to the same main events.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application in accordance with its normal approach to concurrent proceedings.

Lam v. Commissionaires (Great Lakes), 2010 HRTO 243

Sherry Liang

Application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal sent the applicant a letter advising that failure to respond to directions within two weeks would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond within the specified time.

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

Craig Barton v. The John Howard Society of Toronto, Greg Rogers and David Raponi-Monk, 2010 HRTO 235

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to directions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week period.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Barton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 234

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to directions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

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

Craig Barton v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Victoria Peace, 2010 HRTO 233

Sherry Liang

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to directions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

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

Craig Barton v. Landlord and Tenant Board and Don Radford, 2010 HRTO 232

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 1, 2010

Request to expedite denied; financial and emotional pressures from job loss do not constitute urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, and subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the application.

The applicant argued that his former employer was filling his position, he could not obtain references, and he was suffering financial and emotional harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of being truly urgent to warrant an expedited process.

Arifahemad Patel v. Canon Canada Inc., Leena Nagapal and Cory Mariani, 2010 HRTO 230

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 25, 2010

Tribunal directed a conference call and ordered particulars on a request to dismiss an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin during his arrest by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The respondent filed a Request for Order seeking early dismissal of the application due to delay, lack of a prima facie case, and lack of jurisdiction.

John Cvitko v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police), 2010 HRTO 148

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 22, 2010

Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide respondent's contact information.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent at the provided address.

The Tribunal requested further contact information from the applicant and warned that failure to provide it could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Tettero-Crosby v. Hood, 2010 HRTO 141

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 19, 2010

Tribunal waived 60-day time limit to re-activate human rights application following withdrawal of grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the outcome of related grievances.

After the grievances were withdrawn, the applicant failed to file a request to re-activate the application within the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had genuinely, albeit mistakenly, attempted to re-activate the application by informing the Tribunal of the conclusion of the grievances.

The applicant was directed to re-state her allegations of discrimination and reprisal clearly before the respondents were required to file responses.

Baker v. Kingston General Hospital, 2010 HRTO 122

Sherry Liang

Human rights application against WSIAT dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction.

Higginson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2010 HRTO 111

Sherry Liang

Tribunal removes individual respondents and declines to add union representative to human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to a failure to accommodate his drug addiction.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether to remove nine individual respondents and whether to add the applicant's union representative as a respondent.

The Tribunal removed the nine individuals, finding the corporate respondent would be deemed liable for their actions and could provide an adequate remedy.

The Tribunal declined to add the union representative, finding the allegations against him did not provide a basis for a claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The union was granted leave to intervene.

Dubbin v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems, 2010 HRTO 110

Sherry Liang

Human rights application reactivated and amended following settlement of related grievances.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after related grievances were resolved pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The settlement did not resolve the human rights application.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to remove two individual respondents and add a new individual respondent.

Maureen McGillivray v. Algoma University, 2010 HRTO 108

Sherry Liang

Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondent.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Miles v. Setnyk, 2010 HRTO 92

Sherry Liang