Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 16, 2012

Tribunal directs respondent to file response to contravention of settlement application within 10 days.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

Grubac v. Sheraton Hamilton Hotel, 2012 HRTO 340

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 15, 2012

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

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and requested written submissions.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Glover v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 333

Sherry Liang

Tribunal grants respondent 10 days to file a Response after failing to meet the initial deadline.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a completed Response along with an explanation for the delay.

Frenza v. East Side Mario’s Millcroft, 2012 HRTO 323

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 s. 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 deadline.

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

Shelley Kirkby v. 1667027 Ontario Inc. and Hans Klanert, 2012 HRTO 296

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 13, 2012

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance arbitration proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Violet Blackman v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 314

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 1, 2012

Request to remove WSIB as a respondent granted; summary hearing cancelled.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) as a respondent to the human rights application.

No other party responded to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, removed the WSIB as a respondent, and cancelled the scheduled summary hearing.

Brian Robinson v. Duro-Shed Inc., 2012 HRTO 232

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance proceeding raising the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

Subsequently, her union filed a grievance concerning the same issues.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, and noting the agreement of the employer and the union, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceeding.

Carla Bedard v. Near North District School Board, 2012 HRTO 204

Sherry Liang

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

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Aitken v. Loblaw Company, 2012 HRTO 197

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 25, 2012

Tribunal grants respondent 10 days to file response before proceeding without notice.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

Kateryna Chram v. Fabbrica (Mark McEwans Fabbrica), 2012 HRTO 193

Jonathan Dye

8 cases2012–2016

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 17, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as untimely because the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to inadvertently sending the application to the wrong offices and an erroneous belief that medical documents were required.

The Tribunal found that the application was untimely and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

Richard Reid v. Marriott Hotels of Canada Ltd., 2012 HRTO 118

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 16, 2012

Untimely human rights allegations dismissed; prima facie case challenge deferred to hearing.

The respondent school board requested early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that certain allegations were untimely and that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to events in 2004, 2007, and 2009, finding they were outside the one-year limitation period, not part of a series of incidents, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case to the Vice-chair assigned to hear the application.

J.M. v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2012 HRTO 94

Demotion allegations dismissed as untimely; ongoing failure to accommodate claims allowed to proceed with particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his demotion from a head caretaker position and an ongoing failure to accommodate his physical restrictions.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the demotion was a discrete event that did not form part of a series of incidents with the subsequent alleged failures to accommodate, and dismissed the allegations regarding the demotion as untimely.

However, the Tribunal allowed the timely allegations of ongoing failure to accommodate to proceed, while ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding those claims.

Touchette v. Ottawa Catholic School Board, 2012 HRTO 80

Craig Vander Zee

In Private Practice11 cases2004–2023

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 13, 2012

Human rights application alleging minor hockey residency rules discriminate on the basis of sex dismissed.

The applicant, a minor hockey player, alleged that the respondents' residency rules discriminated against him on the basis of sex.

He argued that boys playing in the Ontario Minor Hockey Association (OMHA) faced restrictive residency rules and waiver requirements, whereas girls playing in the Ontario Women's Hockey Association (OWHA) did not.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding that the rules did not constitute direct or constructive discrimination.

The Tribunal held that comparing boys in the OMHA to girls in the OWHA was not an appropriate comparison, as they played in different leagues with different rules, and the residency rules did not have a disproportionate adverse effect on boys within the OMHA itself.

Co.K. v. Ontario Hockey Federation, 2012 HRTO 76

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 10, 2012

Adjournment request denied as counsel was retained over a month before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that his newly retained counsel required more time to prepare due to a large volume of documentation.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that counsel had been retained more than a month before the hearing and the issues had been known to the applicant for nearly a year.

Pryor v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 50

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 9, 2012

Corporate respondent ordered to provide last known addresses of former employees named as individual respondents.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and five individual respondents.

Two of the individual respondents no longer worked for the corporate respondent and had not filed responses.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the last known addresses of the two former employees so that notice of the application could be delivered to them.

Rehana Khudabaksh v. Optima Communications International Inc., 2012 HRTO 35

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 4, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as untimely; delay of over two years not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ancestry and disability, claiming police used excessive force during an incident at the airport.

The application was filed more than two years after the incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Despite the applicant's mental health history and financial barriers, the Tribunal found the delay was not justified, noting the applicant had been capable of taking other legal actions during the delay period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

Steven Edwards v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 14

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 21, 2011

Deadline for production of documents extended to January 15, 2012.

The respondent and the applicant both filed requests regarding the production of documents.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision extending the deadline for the production of documents under Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure to January 15, 2012.

Susan Kovios v. Kelly Services Canada, 2011 HRTO 2291

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 14, 2011

Untimely human rights allegations permitted to remain as potential background evidence for timely claims.

The respondent objected to the timeliness of several allegations in the applicant's human rights application concerning events between 2001 and November 2010.

The applicant conceded that the allegations were untimely for the purpose of seeking monetary remedies, but argued they should be admitted as background evidence to show a pattern of harassment.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to order the respondent to formally respond to the untimely allegations at this stage, leaving the determination of their relevance and admissibility as background evidence to the hearing Vice-chair.

Russell Sears v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2011 HRTO 2246

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 13, 2011

Deadline for production of documents extended to January 27, 2012.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The deadline for the production of documents under Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure was extended to January 27, 2012.

Angela Bonsant v. Fresh Mix Ltd., 2011 HRTO 2239

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 12, 2011

Tribunal asserts jurisdiction over human rights applications against staffing agencies providing services to a federal undertaking.

The applicants filed human rights applications against Xerox and Manpower.

Manpower requested early dismissal, arguing that the issues were governed by federal human rights law because the applicants performed work integral to CIBC, a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the ordinary businesses of Xerox and Manpower are document management and staffing, respectively, which are presumptively provincial matters.

The Tribunal concluded that regulating the human rights of employees providing storage, faxing, and scanning services to CIBC does not impair the core of the federal power to regulate banking.

The Tribunal determined it has jurisdiction over the applications.

Chatoor v. Xerox Global Services, 2011 HRTO 2232

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

Employment and Labour 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 16, 2012

Tribunal directs respondent to file response to contravention of settlement application within 10 days.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

Grubac v. Sheraton Hamilton Hotel, 2012 HRTO 340

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 15, 2012

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

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and requested written submissions.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Glover v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 333

Sherry Liang

Tribunal grants respondent 10 days to file a Response after failing to meet the initial deadline.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.

Frenza v. East Side Mario’s Millcroft, 2012 HRTO 323

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 s. 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 deadline.

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

Shelley Kirkby v. 1667027 Ontario Inc. and Hans Klanert, 2012 HRTO 296

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 13, 2012

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance arbitration proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Violet Blackman v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2012 HRTO 314

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioFeb 1, 2012

Request to remove WSIB as a respondent granted; summary hearing cancelled.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the removal of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) as a respondent to the human rights application.

No other party responded to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, removed the WSIB as a respondent, and cancelled the scheduled summary hearing.

Brian Robinson v. Duro-Shed Inc., 2012 HRTO 232

Sherry Liang

Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance proceeding raising the same issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

Subsequently, her union filed a grievance concerning the same issues.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding.

Carla Bedard v. Near North District School Board, 2012 HRTO 204

Sherry Liang

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

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

Aitken v. Loblaw Company, 2012 HRTO 197

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 25, 2012

Tribunal grants respondent 10 days to file response before proceeding without notice.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the directed deadline.

Kateryna Chram v. Fabbrica (Mark McEwans Fabbrica), 2012 HRTO 193

Jonathan Dye

8 cases2012–2016

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 17, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as untimely because the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to inadvertently sending the application to the wrong offices and an erroneous belief that medical documents were required.

The Tribunal found that the application was untimely and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

Richard Reid v. Marriott Hotels of Canada Ltd., 2012 HRTO 118

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 16, 2012

Untimely human rights allegations dismissed; prima facie case challenge deferred to hearing.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case to the Vice-chair assigned to hear the application.

J.M. v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2012 HRTO 94

Wassim Garzouzi

In Private Practice10 cases2012–2024

Jennifer Birrell

5 cases1995–2014

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 13, 2012

Demotion allegations dismissed as untimely; ongoing failure to accommodate claims allowed to proceed with particulars.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the timely allegations of ongoing failure to accommodate to proceed, while ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding those claims.

Touchette v. Ottawa Catholic School Board, 2012 HRTO 80

Craig Vander Zee

In Private Practice11 cases2004–2023

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 13, 2012

Human rights application alleging minor hockey residency rules discriminate on the basis of sex dismissed.

The applicant, a minor hockey player, alleged that the respondents' residency rules discriminated against him on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding that the rules did not constitute direct or constructive discrimination.

Co.K. v. Ontario Hockey Federation, 2012 HRTO 76

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 10, 2012

Adjournment request denied as counsel was retained over a month before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that his newly retained counsel required more time to prepare due to a large volume of documentation.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that counsel had been retained more than a month before the hearing and the issues had been known to the applicant for nearly a year.

Pryor v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 50

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 9, 2012

Corporate respondent ordered to provide last known addresses of former employees named as individual respondents.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and five individual respondents.

Two of the individual respondents no longer worked for the corporate respondent and had not filed responses.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the last known addresses of the two former employees so that notice of the application could be delivered to them.

Rehana Khudabaksh v. Optima Communications International Inc., 2012 HRTO 35

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioJan 4, 2012

Human rights application dismissed as untimely; delay of over two years not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ancestry and disability, claiming police used excessive force during an incident at the airport.

The application was filed more than two years after the incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

Steven Edwards v. The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 14

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 21, 2011

Deadline for production of documents extended to January 15, 2012.

The respondent and the applicant both filed requests regarding the production of documents.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision extending the deadline for the production of documents under Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure to January 15, 2012.

Susan Kovios v. Kelly Services Canada, 2011 HRTO 2291

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 14, 2011

Untimely human rights allegations permitted to remain as potential background evidence for timely claims.

The respondent objected to the timeliness of several allegations in the applicant's human rights application concerning events between 2001 and November 2010.

The applicant conceded that the allegations were untimely for the purpose of seeking monetary remedies, but argued they should be admitted as background evidence to show a pattern of harassment.

Russell Sears v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2011 HRTO 2246

Sherry Liang

HRTOHuman Rights Tribunal of OntarioDec 13, 2011

Deadline for production of documents extended to January 27, 2012.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The deadline for the production of documents under Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure was extended to January 27, 2012.

Angela Bonsant v. Fresh Mix Ltd., 2011 HRTO 2239

Sherry Liang