Selwyn's Practice WelcomeAbout SelwynNews Selwyn's PracticeContact Selwyn

 

Human Rights Litigation

The Ontario Human Rights Code is enacted to recognizes the dignity and worth of every person. The Code gives every person the right to equal treatment and equal opportunities in five areas (known as social areas):

• Contracts

• Goods, Services and Facilities

• Membership in trade and vocational associations (such as unions)

• Employment

• Housing

The Code protects the people of Ontario from being discriminated against or harassed on grounds including:

• Race

• Ancestry

• Citizenship

• Disability

• Sex(including sexual harassment, pregnancy, and gender identity)

• Ethnic Origin

• Sexual Orientation

I am a human rights lawyer in Toronto who has been successful at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario both as a customer (e.g. Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695) and as an advocate on behalf of customers experiencing discrimination. I understand the human rights process because I have experienced discrimination and harassment. I experienced the system as a party to an application. I experienced the system representing too many customers appearing before the Tribunal to count so I understand your needs as a consumer of legal services before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

On June 30, 2008, the Human Rights Code Amendment Act 2006 came into force. Complaints of discrimination under the Human Rights Code are now dealt filed with the Tribunal. With the changes to the Human Rights Code, that now provides for direct access to the Tribunal, Selwyn Pieters can provide advise, and legal representation before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in cases of discrimination, harassment and/or reprisals. Selwyn can also provide private mediation, adjudication and Investigation of discrimination and harassment issues, particularly anti-Black racism, same sex issues and disability relatred claims. We can slo provide due diligence advice and independent legal advise and opinions.

For Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”), our firm will have the material to file an Application on your behalf. The documents will be filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the opposing party (the ‘Respondent’) will be served by the Tribunal.

Once all the necessary forms have been filed, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal will asses the completeness, whether the complaint falls with in the Tribunal’s legal jurisdiction, duplication of complaint, and possible deferral in the event you have a another claim on the same issue in the courts.

The Tribunal will then serve the respondent and provide them with 35 days to respond to your claim. Once the Tribunal receives the response, they will forward it back to our law office. At this time we will have 10 days to draft a response to the respondent’s claim.

Depending on the circumstances, our office may elect to have mediation where all parties will attend to discuss a possible resolution. At this current moment, mediations are being heard within 60 days. In some circumstances we may see fit to either opt out of the mediation process and go straight to hearing for strategic reasons.

If the respondents do not consent to mediation, the Tribunal will have a conference call where they will determine what the legal issues are.

If the Tribunal determines that a possible resolution cannot be reached at this stage and that such legal issues need to be heard at a hearing the Tribunal will then set a date for a hearing. The Hearing length will vary from case to case. No set time frame can be allocated for hearings, because of the complexity of the law.

If successful at the hearing, the Tribunal may make an order to prevent further violation of the Human Rights Code and/or award damages.

Selwyn would be pleased to provide a consultation where he will discussed  the Tribunal's mediation process, settlement figures, timelines from intake to disposition, possible outcomes, estimated cost per case.

Selwyn has litigated human rights cases and issues before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ontario Human Rights Commission and various courts. Selwyn provides the following services to clients: advice, advocacy, investigation and investigative support, mediation, arbitration and judicial review. 

.

Significant cases include:

.

  • Rudder (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ontario Amateur Softball Assn.; 2005 CarswellOnt 8918; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; August 5, 2005; Docket: Toronto 05CV294629PD3; Subject: Civil Practice and Procedure; Injunctions --- Availability of injunctions -- Injunctions in specific contexts -- Amateur sports associations.; Injunctions --- Procedure on application -- Adjournment of application -- General.
  • Charlton v. Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services); 2007 CarswellOnt 4099; 162 L.A.C. (4th) 71; Ontario Public Service Grievance Board; June 27, 2007; Docket: P-2006-0291; Subject: Constitutional; Human rights --- What constitutes discrimination -- Race, ancestry or place of origin -- Employment -- General principles.; Human rights --- Remedies -- Damages -- Measure of damages.
  • Featherstone (Litigation Guardian of) v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board; 2005 CarswellOnt 6625; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; October 5, 2005; Docket: Toronto 05-CV-297855PD3; Subject: Civil Practice and Procedure; Civil practice and procedure.
  • K.F. v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services
    Board
    [2008] O.J. No. 3178, 2008 ONCJ 382 Ontario Court of Justice; June 6, 2008; Docket: None given.; Subject: Criminal; Constitutional; Criminal law --- Youth offenders -- Youth Criminal Justice Act -- Publication, records and information -- Police and R.C.M.P. records; Criminal law --- Youth offenders -- Youth Criminal Justice Act -- Publication, records and information -- Access to records
  • F. (K.) v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board; 2008 CarswellOnt 6274; 2008 HRTO 179; Ontario Human Rights Tribunal; October 22, 2008; Docket: HR-1405-07, HR-1406-07; Subject: Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Commissions and boards of inquiry -- Parties -- Class actions.; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Commissions and boards of inquiry -- Evidence -- Production of documents.
  • Carty v. Canada (Attorney General); 2007 CarswellOnt 7846; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; December 4, 2007; Docket: 06-CV-316769PD1; Subject: Civil Practice and Procedure; Constitutional; Public; Civil practice and procedure --- Pleadings -- General requirements -- Sufficiency; Civil practice and procedure --- Pleadings -- General requirements -- Pleading evidence
  • Butler-Lynch v. Dr. Roz's Healing Place; 2007 CarswellOnt 8582; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; October 18, 2007; Docket: Toronto 07-FL-588; Subject: Labour and Employment; Public; Labour and employment law --- Employment law -- Termination and dismissal -- Termination of employment by employer -- What constituting just cause -- Misconduct -- Breach of employer's rules; Labour and employment law --- Employment law -- Termination and dismissal -- Notice -- Entitlement; Labour and employment law --- Employment law -- Termination and dismissal -- Remedies -- Damages for mental distress arising from dismissal (Wallace damages)
  • L. (K.B.) v. Dr. Roz's Healing Place; 2007 CarswellOnt 6205; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; September 25, 2007; Docket: Toronto 06-CV-320810SR; Subject: Labour and Employment; Public; Evidence; Labour and employment law --- Employment law -- Termination and dismissal -- Practice and procedure -- Evidence.
  • Moussa v. Canada (Public Service Commission); 2007 CarswellNat 4937; 2007 CF 884, 2007 FC 884; Cour fédérale; September 5, 2007; Docket: T-1209-02; Subject: Labour and Employment; Public; Labour and employment law --- Public service employees -- Appeal and judicial review -- Procedural fairness of board or commission -- Apprehension of bias.; Labour and employment law --- Public service employees -- Appeal and judicial review -- Procedural fairness of board or commission -- Miscellaneous.
  • Loftman v. Cara Operations Ltd.; 2006 CarswellOnt 7400; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; August 24, 2006; Docket: Toronto 06-CV-316768 PD3; Subject: Civil Practice and Procedure; Remedies --- Injunctions -- Availability of injunctions -- Prohibitive injunctions -- Interim and interlocutory injunctions -- Miscellaneous.
  • Suckoo v. Bank of Montreal [2006] F.C.J. No. 696 2006 CarswellNat 4941; 2006 FC 554, 2006 CF 554; Cour fédérale; May 3, 2006; Docket: T-1034-05; Subject: Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- What constitutes discrimination -- Race, ancestry or place of origin -- Employment -- Termination; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- Grounds -- General principles
  • Adamidis v. Canada (Treasury Board); 2006 CarswellNat 1642; 2006 FC 243, 2006 CF 243, 146 A.C.W.S. (3d) 278; Cour fédérale; February 23, 2006; Docket: T-250-05; Subject: Labour and Employment; Public; Labour and employment law --- Public service employees -- Appeal and judicial review -- Standard of review; Labour and employment law --- Public service employees -- Appeal and judicial review -- Procedural fairness of board or commission -- Miscellaneous; Labour and employment law --- Public service employees -- Appeal and judicial review -- Procedural fairness of board or commission -- Failure to comply with procedural requirements; Labour and employment law --- Public service employees -- Appeal and judicial review -- Procedural fairness of board or commission -- Apprehension of bias
  • McLean v. Peel Regional Police Services Board [2006] O.J. No. 1216; 2006 CarswellOnt 2069; Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court); February 22, 2006; Docket: Toronto 327/05; Subject: Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- General principles
  • Cespedes v. University of Toronto; 2004 CarswellOnt 575; 182 O.A.C. 390; Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court); January 23, 2004; Docket: 481/02; Subject: Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- Availability -- General.
  • Pieters v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board); 2007 CarswellOnt 9096; 2007 HRTO 22; Ontario Human Rights Tribunal; July 25, 2007; Docket: HR-1275-07; Subject: Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Commissions and boards of inquiry -- Parties -- Adding or striking parties and joinder.
  • Pieters v. University of Toronto; 2003 CarswellOnt 5853; [2003] O.J. No. 3179; Ontario Court of Appeal; July 14, 2003; Docket: CA M29790; Subject: Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- Grounds -- Patently unreasonable decision; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- Availability -- General; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- Grounds -- Apprehension of bias
  • Pieters v. Department of National Revenue (Ruling 1)   -  In this case, a settlement agreement was reached between the complainant and the respondent, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) which impacts on the treatment of visible minorities at Canadian ports of entry.  CBSA has agreed, among other things, to work with the Commission to develop and implement a special pilot project which will generate statistical information (race, colour, national/ethnic origin, and gender) on individuals entering the country who are referred to secondary examination, analyse the data and make appropriate recommendations.
  • Pieters v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission); 2000 CarswellOnt 1771; Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) [Divisional Court]; March 24, 2000; Docket: Toronto 645/99; Subject: Public; Constitutional; Civil Practice and Procedure; Human rights --- Practice and procedure -- Judicial review -- Grounds -- Requirements of natural justice.
  • Simon v. Ontario (Ministry of Labour); 2009 CarswellOnt 825; Ontario Public Service Grievance Board; February 18, 2009; Docket: P-2004-1727; Subject: Labour and Employment; Public; Labour and employment law.
  • Ri, Re; 2003 CarswellNat 4527; 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Immigration & Refugee Board of Canada (Refugee Protection Division); September 12, 2003; Docket: TA2-15547, TA2-19913; Subject: Immigration; Aliens, immigration and citizenship --- Exclusion and removal -- Inadmissible classes -- War crimes or crimes against humanity; Aliens, immigration and citizenship --- Convention refugees -- Elements of Convention refugee status -- Grounds -- Membership in particular social group; Aliens, immigration and citizenship --- Convention refugees -- Credibility
  • Liang, Re; 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251; Immigration & Refugee Board (Convention Refugee Determination Division); July 18, 2002; Docket: T99-05599; Subject: Immigration; Constitutional; Aliens, immigration and citizenship --- Constitutional issues -- Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Visitors and immigrants -- Arrest and detention
  • B. (K.) (Litigation Guardian of) v. Toronto District School Board; 2008 CarswellOnt 455 (SCJ).
  • K.B. v. Toronto District School Board [2006] O.J. No. 1765 (Div. Ct.)
  • K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. [2006] O.J. No. 1380 (Div. Ct.)
  • K.B. v. Toronto District School Board [2006] O.J. No. 1026 (Div. Ct.)
  • K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. [2006] O.J. No. 746 (Div. Ct.)
  • K. B. and T. M. v. Toronto District School Board et al. [2006] O.J. No. 362 (confidentiality of applicants and sealing of documents)
  • Jason Williams v. Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Human Rights Tribunal)
  • Birkett v. Canadian Human Rights Commission and Goodwin [2004] F.C.J. No. 2180, (T-1701-04, November 18, 2004, Justice Phelan) 
  • Tewogbade v. Toronto Police Services Board (race, disability) l
  • Chaudhary v. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (November 30, 2004, Canadian Human Rights Commission)  - a case involving allegations of harassment filed by a South Asian employee against her managers.
  • Almon v. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (March 24, 2005, Canadian Human Rights Commission)  - a case where an American Citizen alleged that he was racially profiled and harassed at Canada's port of entry.
  • Consumer Racial Profiling litigation against The Gap; Famous Players and several other corporations.
  • Safe Schools Act Cases including two cases from Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board that were successfully settled before the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
  • White v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation (JMER-4F3RYV, September 23, 2003, Ontario Human Rights Commission)  - this is a case in which a manager of TCHC allgeged that he was racially harassed and discriminated in his employment. Mr. Pieters continues to represent this client in a new complaint of retaliation.
  • Karia v. Canada Post Corporation (20041533, June 27, 2005) - this is a case where a South Asian Franchisee alleged that he was racially discriminated by CPC in its contractual relations with him and his company.
Selwyn A. Pieters - Barrister & Solicitor; 2006 All rights reserved.
space jam 5s low bred 11s space jam 5s jordan 5 cement tongue jordan 11 low bred jordan 11 low bred space jam 5s low bred 11s jordan 11 low bred space jam 5s jordan 11 low bred low bred 11s jordan 11 low bred space jam 5s jordan 5 cement tongue jordan 5 cement tongue cement tongue 5s jordan 5 space jam cement tongue 5s jordan 5 space jam low citrus 11s low citrus 11s low bred 13s jordan 5 space jam Jordan retro 11 Jordan retro 11 jordan 13 low bred jordan 13 low bred jordan 11 low citrus jordan 11 low citrus jordan 11 low citrus jordan 11 low citrus low citrus 11s Jordan retro 11 jordan 13 low bred jordan 11 low citrus jordan 11 low citrus low citrus 11s Jordan retro 11 Jordan retro 11