Andrew Pinto

The respondent was employed by the appellant, a commercial real estate company, from 2001-2004 and again from 2009-2017, serving as Managing Director.

Upon termination without cause on January 19, 2017, the respondent received statutory minimums under the Employment Standards Act but no bonus compensation.

The respondent sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming damages for reasonable notice, benefits during the notice period, and lost bonus compensation.

The motion judge found the termination clause unenforceable as it contracted out of employment standards without providing greater benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding and confirmed the respondent's entitlement to bonus damages for both the period worked and the notice period, as well as benefits compensation.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court had previously awarded the plaintiff eight months' notice and a pro-rated bonus, totaling $106,883.02.

The plaintiff requested costs of $71,701.63 on a mixed partial and substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The defendant argued the requested costs were excessive and disproportionate, suggesting $20,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors and the principle of proportionality, found the plaintiff's counsel's time spent disproportionate to the case's complexity, despite the plaintiff's success and a favourable offer to settle.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $35,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The core issue was the enforceability of a termination clause that the plaintiff argued contracted out of the Employment Standards Act (ESA) by failing to explicitly provide for severance and benefit continuation.

The court found the termination clause unenforceable because it potentially provided less than the ESA minimums.

The plaintiff was awarded 8 months' reasonable notice at common law and compensation for lost bonuses during the notice period, as the bonuses were found to be an integral, non-discretionary part of his compensation.

The claim for lost benefits was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of actual loss.

The applicant, a civilian Fleet Supervisor with the Niagara Regional Police Service, applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 116(1) of the Police Services Act for a declaration that he is a senior officer.

The respondent Senior Officers' Association initially opposed the application but later withdrew its opposition.

The Commission applied the Dryden factors and found that the applicant is employed in a supervisory or confidential capacity.

The application was granted and the applicant was declared a senior officer.

In an interim decision regarding production requests, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered partial disclosure from both parties.

The respondents sought the applicant's complete medical records, which the Tribunal limited to mental health records from the start of her employment due to privacy concerns.

The applicant sought a detailed employee list and investigation files, which the Tribunal narrowed to specific bonus information and available investigation records, noting that one investigation file had been destroyed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, arguing that the specific allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant clarified that the last instance of alleged sexual harassment occurred within the one-year period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents amounted to a series of incidents, the last of which occurred less than a year before the application was filed, and denied the request to dismiss.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for early production of documents as premature, noting no exceptional circumstances justified departing from the standard disclosure process.

The applicant, a daycare worker, alleged she developed a disability in her arm and shoulder due to heavy lifting at work, and that her employment was terminated when she requested accommodation and time off.

The respondent maintained that the applicant had resigned during a staff meeting and that her subsequent requests for accommodation were an attempt to resile from her resignation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed resigned and had not requested accommodation prior to doing so.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that her disability was a factor in the termination of her employment, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged that the respondent discriminated against her based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex when she sought to lease commercial property.

The respondent required that rent arrears from the applicant's former employer be paid before entering into a lease with her.

The applicant claimed this condition was discriminatory because it was not imposed on her former employer's White male owner when he subsequently leased property.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the condition was imposed because the respondent reasonably viewed the applicant as a principal of the former employer, and the former owner was not subjected to the condition because he had already paid the arrears before signing his new lease.

In an ongoing human rights hearing, the Tribunal addressed several interim issues raised by the parties.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant was not required to provide further particulars or link his evidence to specific Code breaches prior to final argument, as his direct evidence was already complete.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the admissibility of the respondents' revised will says regarding a use of force training incident until after hearing from specific witnesses.

Finally, the Tribunal noted the respondents' position that they did not dispute the applicant's medical expert's qualifications or the correctness of his information, but maintained the information was insufficient to return the applicant's use of force.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin because the respondent, Pride Toronto, granted a marching permit to Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA).

The respondent requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations were rooted in political opinions, which are not protected grounds under the Human Rights Code, and that the applicant failed to establish any differential treatment or disadvantage based on a protected ground.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and gender identity after the respondent required her to pay the rent arrears of her former employer before entering into a commercial lease.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a summary hearing and the production of documents regarding the respondent's lease arrangements with a white male comparator, the Tribunal found it could not conclude the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss was denied and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and gender identity after the respondent required her to pay the rent arrears of a previous tenant before leasing a commercial property to her.

The respondent claimed this was a standard business requirement to prevent the previous tenant from avoiding arrears by operating under a new name.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims were largely speculative but noted that evidence regarding the respondent's lease arrangements with the previous tenant was in the respondent's sole possession.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the relevant lease documents before making a final determination on the summary hearing.

The respondent university filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to have the hearing of the human rights applications proceed in English only, or alternatively, with only the examination-in-chief of one applicant in French.

The self-represented applicants, whose first language is French, opposed the request and sought a bilingual hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the university's request, finding that a bilingual hearing is consistent with the Tribunal's responsibility to provide fair, just, and expeditious dispute resolution, and that the potential length of the proceedings did not justify derogating from the applicants' rights under the French Language Services Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate on the basis of disability against his employer, McMaster University, and several individuals.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed three individuals because the university accepted vicarious liability and their actions were not the central focus.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the applicant's direct supervisor, as the allegations against him included harassment and were central to the application.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant's request for production of file notes from the university's Office of Human Rights and Equity Services and to compel its staff to testify was denied, as the information was not relevant to the core issue of discrimination upon return to work.

The applicant was directed to provide consent for the release of medical information from her summonsed medical witnesses.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the revocation of its registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant argued that the respondent breached principles of natural justice in its decision-making process regarding two specific properties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal explicitly and properly based its revocation decision on other warranty breaches without relying on the evidence concerning the two disputed properties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability against his former legal representatives.

The allegations stemmed from comments allegedly made during a mediation session for a motor vehicle accident claim.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, the conduct did not amount to a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after she was denied entry to certain areas of a Hindu temple with her service dog.

The application was filed past the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to her legal clinic's negligence.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation amounting to good faith for the delay, noting contradictory evidence regarding which respondent the clinic agreed to pursue.

The Tribunal also found the respondents would suffer substantial prejudice due to the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a South Asian woman, alleged she was discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin when her employment as a Branch Manager was terminated during her probationary period.

She pointed to an incident where a customer refused to speak to an 'Indian' manager and alleged subsequent differential treatment by her supervisor.

The Tribunal found the employer's explanation that the applicant was terminated for failing to meet performance expectations to be credible and more probable than an inference of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, two Black lawyers, alleged they were racially profiled when a librarian/administrator at the Peel Law Association asked them for identification in the lawyers' lounge at the Brampton Courthouse.

The Tribunal found that the applicants established a prima facie case of discrimination, as they were the only persons questioned among several unknown individuals in the lounge.

The respondents failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for singling out the applicants.

The Tribunal concluded that race and colour were factors in the decision to question them and the aggressive manner in which it was done.

The respondents were ordered to pay $2,000 to each applicant for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.