interim decisions

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

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

Summary hearings and the burden of proof at the HRTO

September 28, 2016 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Human Resources, Human Rights

For an application to be fully processed at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the applicant must establish a nexus or “connection” between the protected ground they are alleging and the conduct of the respondent. This was reiterated in the recent summary hearing of Wasty v. Long Wolf Real Estate Technologies.

Dabic v Windsor Police Services, discrimination in employment, employment law, employment relationship, HR issues, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decisions, jurisdiction, Kevin Sambrano, Lomotey v. Kitchener Waterloo Multicultural Centre, Murray v. YouthLink, prohibited grounds, race and colour, racism, Summary Hearings, termination, Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, Wasty v. Lone Wolf Real Estate Technologies

Does the Tribunal have the power to deal with allegations of “unfairness” at work?

August 26, 2016 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, Human Resources, Human Rights

Whether or not the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness in the workplace was recently revisited in Murray v. YouthLink.

ancestry, Dabic v Windsor Police Services, discrimination in employment, employment law, employment relationship, ethnic origin, HR issues, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decisions, jurisdiction, Kevin Sambrano, Murray v. YouthLink, NOID, Notice of Intent to Dismiss, prohibited grounds, race and colour, racism, Summary Hearings, termination, Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure

To defer or not to defer a human rights application: What are the relevant questions?

June 22, 2016 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Accessibility Standards, Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Integrated Accessibility Regulation, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll, Standard for Employment

Where the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario finds there is a separate proceeding that may involve similar facts, the Tribunal has discretion to defer consideration of an application until the proceeding has been completed. Such was the question, whether or not to defer the application in the recent interim order in West v.Yogen Fruz Canada Inc.

2016 HRTO 777, civil suit was pending, deferral of applications, Disability, discrimination in employment, Human Rights code of Ontario, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Human Rights Tribunal Rules of Procedure, interim decisions, Kevin Sambrano, policies and procedures, Rule 14.1, termination, Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, West v. Yogen Fruz Canada Inc.

Summary hearings at the HRTO: Is an alternative explanation enough?

May 13, 2016 Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services Employee Relations, HR Policies and Procedures, Human Resources, Human Rights, Notice, Damages and Settlements, Payroll, Union Relations, Wages and Compensation

When a respondent is first made aware that a Human Rights application has been filed against them, often their first response is to deny any accusations and to request a summary hearing in hopes of disposing of the matter at the outset. While such hearings may be requested, it does not always work to the advantage of the respondent. Such was the case in the recent Interim Decision of Lomotey v. Kitchener Waterloo Multicultural Centre.

2016 HRTO 428, ancestry, collaborative agreements, colour, discrimination in employment, human rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, interim decisions, Kevin Sambrano, Lomotey v. Kitchener Waterloo Multicultural Centre, not-for-profit, ontario, place of origin and ethnic origin, prohibited grounds, race, race and colour, racial profiling, racism, reasonable prospect of success, Reis v. Mississauga, Rule 19A.6, stereotypes, Summary Hearings, Tribunal process, Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure