Jorge Pineda
WORKPLACE LAWYER, CALGARY
About Jorge Pineda
Jorge Pineda is a principled and results-driven employment lawyer and litigator with Taylor Janis LLP in Calgary. His practice is characterized by disciplined advocacy and unwavering commitment to his clients.
Jorge brings more than a decade of litigation experience across Ontario and Alberta, representing clients in complex employment and contractual disputes, as well as administrative proceedings. He believes in clear and forthright guidance and sound representation.
Before joining Taylor Janis LLP, Jorge practiced at medium- and large-sized law firms in Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario, and worked as in-house counsel. He served as an elected Bencher of the Law Society of Ontario, advocating for responsible professional governance and the preservation of institutional integrity. He also served as an Adjudicator of the Law Society Tribunal, where he presided over discipline and licensing hearings, sharpening his command of procedural fairness and administrative law.
He has also advocated in Charter cases, defending civil liberties, freedom of expression, association and religion. This work informs his belief that a lawyer’s role is not only to resolve disputes but also to advocate fearlessly and principled.
Jorge represents clients before the Alberta Courts as well as a broad range of tribunals and regulatory authorities, including:
- Alberta Human Rights Commission
- Employment Standards Branch
- Labour Relations Board
- Professional regulatory bodies
- Municipal and provincial administrative decision-makers
While he views principled negotiation as the most efficient path to resolution, he litigates with resolve and precision when a client’s rights demand firm protection.
Notable Victories
Bowen v Brantford (City), Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
Date: August 28, 2019
Outcome: Jorge successfully represented the City of Brantford in defending the approval of minor variances permitting the expansion of an existing commercial motel use. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, accepting the City’s planning evidence and reaffirming that neighbourhood nuisance concerns, absent land-use impacts, do not defeat otherwise compliant variances under section 45 of the Planning Act. The decision reinforces municipal authority to facilitate appropriate commercial redevelopment within established planning frameworks.
Citation / Link: Bowen v Brantford (City), 2019 CanLII 81710 (ON LPAT)
Powell v. Brantford (City)
Date: November 19, 2018
Outcome: Successfully defended the City of Brantford before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in a contravention of a settlement application arising from a deferred human rights matter involving return-to-work and accommodation issues. The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that no settlement had been breached and confirming that the applicant had pursued the wrong procedural avenue. The Tribunal further imposed restrictions requiring the applicant to seek leave before bringing further related proceedings.
Citation / Link: Powell v. Brantford (City), 2018 HRTO 1630 (CanLII)
Lil Dude Ranch Ltd. v. 1229122 Alberta Inc.
Date: January 21, 2014
Outcome: Successfully represented the defendant in a complex commercial dispute before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench involving competing claims arising from a failed land and lease arrangement. The Court rejected an attempt to improperly expand a counterclaim by adding a non-party as a plaintiff-by-counterclaim, reaffirming that such counterclaims are a nullity under the Alberta Rules of Court. At the same time, the Court permitted targeted amendments to the counterclaim’s prayer for relief, ensuring the real issues in dispute could proceed efficiently toward trial.
Citation / Link: Lil Dude Ranch Ltd. v. 1229122 Alberta Inc., 2014 ABQB 39 (CanLII)
Moore v. Ferro & Company 2017
Date: January 4, 2017
Outcome: Successfully represented Taylor Leibow and Julie Savage before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in a complex interim human rights proceeding intersecting with bankruptcy and insolvency law. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s repeated reconsideration attempts and dismissed all requested relief against the affected parties, confirming that trustees in bankruptcy and their representatives could not be held personally liable for alleged human rights violations arising from a bankrupt individual’s conduct. The decision reinforced the primacy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act stay provisions and curtailed further procedurally improper applications.
Citation / Link: Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2017 HRTO 5 (CanLII)
Moore v. Ferro & Company 2016
Date: June 30, 2016
Outcome: Successfully represented the trustee-in-bankruptcy and related respondents in a significant interim decision before the Human Rights Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected constitutional and statutory challenges to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act stay provisions, confirming that human rights claims for monetary compensation are subject to the federal bankruptcy stay and that neither the Canadian Bill of Rights nor the primacy clause of the Ontario Human Rights Code rendered those provisions inoperable. The decision reinforced the primacy of federal insolvency law and curtailed procedurally improper attempts to circumvent the bankruptcy regime.
Citation / Link: Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2016 HRTO 873 (CanLII)
CDM Direct Mail v. The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
Date: April 4, 2014
Notable Outcome: Successfully represented CDM Direct Mail at trial in a commercial contract dispute arising from a direct-mail fundraising agreement. The Court found that the defendant repudiated the contract by refusing to pay approved invoiced costs, rejected the defendant’s cost-plus interpretation, dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded judgment in favour of CDM. The trial court’s findings on contractual interpretation, repudiation, and evidentiary credibility were later upheld on appeal, confirming the soundness of the trial result.
Ruigrok Acres & Melick v. Clintar Landscape Management, Action No. 18293-14 Ontario Small Claims Court
Date: 2015
Notable Outcome: Successfully defended a commercial landscaping company in a contractual interpretation dispute arising from winter maintenance services. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ narrow reading of the agreement and held that, as a matter of business efficacy, the snow-plowing contracts required the subcontractors to fully clear and pile snow as necessary to make the parking lot usable, notwithstanding the absence of explicit “piling” language. The plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed in their entirety, and the defendant was found entitled to terminate the contracts for non-performance.
Citation / Link: Unreported Ontario Small Claims Court decision (2015)
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Church of God (Restoration) Aylmer et al. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Court File No. CV-21-00008-00
Date: September 15, 2021
Notable Outcome: Successfully represented a church congregation in securing a court order that allowed the doors of its church to be reopened after they had been locked by enforcement authorities. The Court restored access to the building and permitted the resumption of in-person worship, subject to compliance with public health requirements and a court-approved safety plan. The result affirmed that even during a public health emergency, religious communities are entitled to fair, proportionate treatment and meaningful access to the courts to vindicate their ability to gather and worship.
Citation / Link: Unreported Ontario Superior Court of Justice order, September 15, 2021 (Thomas RSJ)
Professional Memberships
- Law Society of Alberta
- Law Society of Ontario
- Canadian Bar Association
Other Languages
- Spanish (conversational)