• First Reference
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Free Coronavirus FAQ 🔬
  • Free Newsletter 📨
  • Get PolicyPro Free Trial 🎉

First Reference Talks

Discussions on Human Resources, Employment Law, Payroll and Internal Controls

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

interim decisions

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 2 Minutes Read July 20, 2018

Ainmelk v. Jeoffrey: Interim remedies at the HRTO revisited

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.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Human Rights / 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

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read December 19, 2017

HRTO issues rare interim order based on family status

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.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Human Rights / 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

By Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services | 3 Minutes Read September 28, 2016

Summary hearings and the burden of proof at the HRTO

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.

Article by Kevin Sambrano, Sambrano Legal Services / Human Rights / 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

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About us

Established in 1995, First Reference Inc. (known as La Référence in Quebec) provides Canadian organizations of any size with practical and authoritative resources to help ensure compliance.

First Reference Talks

  • Home
  • About
  • Archives
  • Resources

Main Menu

  • About First Reference
  • Resources
  • Contact us
  • 1 800 750 8175

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

We welcome your comments on our blog articles. However, we do not respond to specific legal questions in this space.
We do not provide any form of legal advice or legal opinion. Please consult a lawyer in your jurisdiction or try one of our products.


Copyright © 2009 - 2021 · First Reference Inc. · All Rights Reserved
Legal and Copyright Notices · Publisher's Disclaimer · Privacy Policy · Accessibility Policy