Yvonne Sharras v. Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital, Sheri Beredewold and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4365, 2008 HRTO 105

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yvonne Sharras

Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital, Sheri Beredewold and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4365

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 25, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 105

Indexed as: Sharras v. Rouge Valley Health System

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax (416) 326-2199 / Toll Free 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website http://www.hrto.ca

1In an Interim Decision in this matter, Sharras v. Rouge Valley Centenary Hospital, 2008 HRTO 73, the Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant and respondents on whether the application was barred by application of s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, and a statement of facts from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) in relation to the complaint filed at the Commission by the applicant. The applicant’s submissions were due and filed on September 24, 2008. The respondents’ submissions and the Commission’s statement were due on October 8, 2008. The applicant was permitted to file a reply by October 17, 2008.

2The Tribunal received correspondence dated September 22, 2008, from counsel for the first two named respondents, asking that the date the respondents be required to deliver their submissions be changed to October 15, 2008, on the basis that the respondents required the Commission’s statement in order to make full submissions. He also asked that the Commission be ordered to provide a copy of the complaint filed with it, as the respondents did not receive a copy.

3It appears that the September 22, 2008 letter was not copied to the applicant or the other respondents and that the letter to the Tribunal from the applicant’s representative dated August 27, 2008 was not copied to the respondents, as required by Rule 1.12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The attention of the parties is directed to the requirement that all written communications with the Tribunal, with the exception of applications and responses, must be copied to all other parties.

4The request for an extension of time for the respondents to provide their submissions is granted, with a comparable extension for the applicant to file her reply. As the applicant’s submissions, served and filed yesterday, contain a copy of the complaint filed with the Commission, there is no need to make the second order requested.

5The Tribunal’s order of September 10, 2008, is amended to require that the respondents deliver and file their submissions by October 15, 2008, and the applicant may deliver and file a reply by October 22, 2008. The requirement for the Commission to deliver and file a statement of facts by October 8, 2008 remains in effect.