Author Archive - Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services

Kevin Sambrano, B.A.A. is a paralegal who is passionate about law. Kevin has the distinction of being the first paralegal candidate to participate in the Community Legal Aid Services Programme at Osgoode Hall Law School. Sambrano Legal offers legal representation in human rights, landlord and tenant, employment, and Small Claims Court matters within the GTA. Kevin has been a regular contributor to First Reference Talks since 2014 with over 44 published articles relating to human rights and employment law. Read more

Is “accent” protected under the Ontario Human Rights Code?

December 18, 2019 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Recruiting and Hiring, Training and Development, 0

The applicant, originally from India, initially filed an application at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging reprisal in employment. The applicant alleged he had been offered a job and that during the training period, the trainer had made a number of remarks in regard to the applicant’s accent when speaking English.

accent, ancestry, discrimination based on race, employment law, ethnic origin, human rights code, human rights workplace, Kevin Sambrano, place of origin, Policy on discrimination and language

Recent case assessment direction and “creed”

September 25, 2019 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Recruiting and Hiring, 0

The Halton District Catholic School Board posted a job advertisement for a contract position. The applicant replied to the advertisement, and when he was not selected for the position he filed a complaint at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination on the ground of creed.

CAD, Case Assesment Direction, code-related allegations, creed, discrimination in employment, employment law human rights, human rights, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, Ontario Human Rights Code, Ontario human rights commission, religious discrimination

Employer’s duty to investigate under the “Code”

August 1, 2019 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, 0

Nelson v. Lakehead University is a noteworthy decision from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario as it articulates the complexity of any human rights matter before the Tribunal, and further underscores the employer’s duty to investigate.

discrimination based on age, employment law, human rights code, human rights hearings, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, Nelson v. Lakehead University

Evidence and credibility at the HRTO

April 24, 2019 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Human Resources, Human Rights, 0

Age is one of the protected grounds under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Like all jurisdictions credible evidence, whether documentary or witness testimony, is needed for either side to support their version of facts.

age, Applicant, employment law, Faryna v. Chorny, Gammo v. Provis Rudd Endoscopy Clinic, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, lack of evidence, respondent, witness credibility

The employee’s responsibility under the “Code”

February 26, 2019 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, Employment/Labour Standards, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights

Accommodation under the “Code” is a bridge where both parties must meet. What happens if a reasonable effort is not made on the part of the applicant?

disability and sick leave management system, Duty to Accomdate to the point of undue hardship, duty to accommodate an employee with a disability, employment law, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, LeBlanc v. Haugen’s BBQ Ltd., prima facie discrimination, respondent

When a doctor’s report may be insufficient

December 21, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employment/Labour Standards, Health and Safety, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights

At the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, it is not unusual for medical documents to be entered as evidence, but according to the interim decision of Ivanescu v. Credit Valley Hospital, these medical documents may not be sufficient without the testimony of the physician.

employment law

Interim remedies at the HRTO revisited following termination

October 22, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights

The previous article citing Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre discussed interim orders at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Of note is the rarity of a decision that institutes compliance on the part of the respondent prior to the conclusion of the matter. In such a request, the burden of proof is placed squarely upon the applicant, as in Codrin v. Commissionaires Great Lakes.

Codrin v. Commissionaires Great Lakes, Disability, employment law, human rights, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decison, interim decisons, interim remedies, Kevin Sambrano, reinstatement, reprisal, Rule 23.2, termination, Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre, Toronto human rights paralegal, Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure

Lack of evidence works against employer at the HRTO

September 10, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights

In the matter of Puniani v. Rakesh Majithia CA Professional Corporation, after being terminated from her employment, the applicant filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging discrimination based on sex. The respondents denied any such claims and alleging the reason for the applicant’s termination was related to job performance.

age, ancestry, burden of proof, Citizenship, Code, code-breach, colour, creed, Disability, discrimination, duty to accommodate, employment law, employment law hrto, ethnic origin, evidence, family status, gender expression, gender identity, human rights code, human rights paralegal, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim orders, Kevin Sambrano, marital status, maternity leave, obligation under the Code, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, place of origin, pregnancy, prima facie, Puniani v. Rakesh Majithia, race, record of offences, Sambrano Legal Services, sex, sexual orientation

Ainmelk v. Jeoffrey: Interim remedies at the HRTO revisited

July 20, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Human Resources, Human Rights

Although the Tribunal does have the power to issue orders in regard to compliance, it is rare that they are granted, based on a very specific criteria that must be met. One should review each guideline carefully before requesting such an order in the interest of time, money, and adding to the complexity of the matter.

Ainmelk v. Jeoffrey, employment law, harassment discrimination, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decisions, interim remedies, Kevin Sambrano, Rule 23.2, the Code, Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre, Toronto human rights paralegal

The double “financial” jeopardy of HRTO damages against the employer

May 22, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights

An employer named in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Application, if decided against, may be responsible for both wage loss and most likely general damages.

A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited, Divisional Court, employment law, general damages, hrto, HRTO damages, human rights training, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano, remedies, Sambrano Legal Services, Sanford v. Koop, small claims court, special damages, Superior Court of Ontario, the Code

HRTO confirms co-op student’s right to pursue interests

April 23, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Uncategorized

Co-op students may be covered by the “Code”, and should be afforded the same inalienable rights as all other employees during a potential interview or co-op placement.

2 C.H.R.R. D/487, 2005 HRTO 53, 2011 HRTO 1724, applicant’s injury to dignity, Browning v. Northend Body Shop Ltd.2017 HRTO 1001, co-op students, discrimination, employer vicarious liablility, employment law, Faryna v. Chorny, feelings and self-respect, Hartling v. Timmins Board of Police Commissioners (1981), hrto, human rights applications, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano, Ontario Human Rights Code, Sanford v. Koop, sex, the Code, vicariously liability, Whale v. Keele North Recycling

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: the “Code” matters, not social norms

March 26, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Human Resources, Human Rights

Although there may be social norms at play, a business owner would do well to continue to update and implement workplace and human rights policies on an ongoing basis, otherwise, they may be liable for any breach of the “Code”, whether intended or otherwise.

discrimination, employment law, George v. 1735475 Ontario Limited, harrassment, hrto, human rights applications, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano, Ministry of Labour, nigglet, personal respondent, poisoned work environments, social norms, workplace harassment

No reason given for refusal of HRTO request to expedite, no reasons required

February 26, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, Human Resources, Human Rights

In this matter, the Request to Expedite was dismissed through a letter from the Registrar. In the interim decision, the Tribunal further explained that in matters dealing with process, there are no grounds for reconsideration, as only final orders may be reconsidered.

discrimination, discrimination in services, employment law, expedited hearings, Fish v. national Steel Car Litd., harrassment, hrto, human rights applications, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decison, interim decisons, Kevin Sambrano, procedural fairness, reprisal, Request to Expedite, Rule 21, Rules of Procedure, the Code, Toronto Paralegal

Abrams v. Kupar: Pregnancy not a factor in short-term employee’s termination

January 29, 2018 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, Human Resources, Human Rights

In the matter of Abrams v. Kupar, the applicant, who was pregnant at the time, was terminated from a new job. The applicant believed it was due to the fact that she was pregnant. The respondent alleged that the termination had nothing to do with her pregnancy, but rather that the employee was not suited for the job. The matter was heard at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The Tribunal’s decision was in favour of the respondent.

Abrams v. Kupar, Code, code-breach, discrimination, duty to accommodate, employment law, family accommodation, hrto, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim orders, Kevin Sambrano, Kevin Sambrano human rights paralegal, maternity leaves, obligation under the Code, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, pregnancy, Sambrano Legal Services

HRTO issues rare interim order based on family status

December 19, 2017 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Human Resources, Human Rights

As common as an interim order or decision may be, it is uncommon that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario may issue an order that institutes compliance on the part of the respondent prior to the conclusion of the matter. Such was the case Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre.

accommodation to undue hardship, Canada (Attorney General) v Johnstone, childcare obligation, discrimination, duty to accommodate, employment law, family accommodation, family status, Family Status Accommodation, hrto, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decisions, interim orders, Johnstone test, Johnstone v Canada, Kevin Sambrano, maternity leaves, obligation under the Code, Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Sambrano Legal Services, Tomlinson v. Runnymede Healthcare Centre