Sambrano Paralegal► Resource Blog

Home » Posts tagged 'ancestry'

Tag Archives: ancestry

OHRC’s Policy on discrimination and language: Arnold v. Stream Global Services

As per the OHRC’s Policy on discrimination and language, although the Human Rights Code (“Code”) does not explicitly identify “language” as a prohibited ground (more…)

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

human rights toronto kevin sambrano legal services

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.

Pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a summary hearing is (more…)

Respondents challenge $100,000.00 human rights decision

Toronto Paralegal human Rights SambranoWhile more often than not the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s decisions are not challenged, there are two processes by which this may be done. The first is called a request for reconsideration. The second is an application for judicial review. The latter was the case in Big Inc. v. Islam, 2015 ONSC 2921. (more…)

Poisoned work environment, discrimination, and undue hardship under the Ontario Human Rights Code

The applicant, Darryl Wesley, worked with the respondent company, 2252466 Ontario Inc. o/law-753482_640a The Ground Guys, performing landscape work for a period of approximately six weeks before being terminated. At the time, the employer indicated that Mr. Wesley was being laid off due to lack of work. Mr. Wesley, a gay Aboriginal man, who is also deaf, believed that he had been discriminated against and filed a human rights application. The respondents denied the allegation of harassment and discrimination.

On January 3, 2014, a hearing was conducted by teleconference without the participation of the respondents. As the respondents had elected not to participate and give evidence, the applicant’s evidence was uncontradicted. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: