Pinto Shekib LLP

Starting a two-week civil trial today.

After months of preparation, countless documents, strategy sessions, and yes — more than a few sleepless nights — we’re finally here.

Trial work is demanding, intense, and often all-consuming. But it’s also one of the most meaningful parts of the job — standing up, advocating, and trusting the process.

Grateful for the team, the support, and the opportunity to do this work.

See you on the other side.

Litigation is a tough job. And some days are tougher than others.

But remember: your clients come to you at one of the most difficult times in their life.

And when you make a difference in a client’s life, it makes those long long nights worth it.

In Lavides ats Windsor Hill Non-Profit Housing Corp., the Applicant (a tenant) brought two companion applications against our client, Windsor Hill (a non-profit housing corp), at the HRTO:

(1) Breach of a Settlement Agreement Application; and,
(2) Breach of the Human Rights Code Application.

The majority of the allegations in the Breach of Settlement Application were dismissed for delay (hearing on March 6 to deal with the few remaining claims).

The Breach of the Human Rights Code Application was dismissed in its entirety. The adjudicator noted:

“[1] The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal in housing and goods and services, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against them by not approving requested repairs in a timely manner, which aggravated their disabilities.
..

[16] As noted above, and confirmed by Mehedi, it is not enough for an applicant to assert that they have an enumerated ground(s) and have received adverse treatment at the hands of the respondent. To come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicant must provide some factual basis to link the respondent’s conduct to their Code-enumerated ground(s). A bald assertion that the adverse treatment they received was owing to their enumerated ground(s) is not enough to provide the required factual basis.

[17] The applicant failed to provide any clear factual basis to link their assertions about their disability to the alleged adverse treatment. Simply because the applicant made a request for repairs, and the respondent did not comply as promptly as they would like, does not mean that discrimination has occurred.”

We are very proud of our client for taking a principled approach to this case. It would have been easy to settle and pay out something, but it decided to take a stand against frivolous claims.

Decision here: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2024/2024hrto97/2024hrto97.html?resultIndex=2&resultId=cc3fe64b89f944368e0d93d7914955f6&searchId=2024-02-23T15:35:10:050/c1b2a31396674a2a98960d9e0c8dc0a4&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPIkZhcmhhZCBTaGVraWIiAAAAAAE