Maurer v. Metroland Media Group, 2009 HRTO 1221

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Maurer

Applicant

• and-

Metroland Media Group Inc. c.o.b. as The Hamilton Spectator, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, Local 87-M (Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild) and Paul Morse

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: August 6, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1221 Indexed as: Maurer v. Metroland Media Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Elizabeth Maurer, Applicant ) On Her Own Behalf

Metroland Media Group Inc. c.o.b. as ) Jason Green, Counsel The Hamilton Spectator, Respondent )

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ ) Mandy Wojcik, Counsel Union of Canada, Local 87-M (Southern ) Ontario Newsmedia Guild) and Paul Morse, ) Respondents )

1This is an Application filed on August 8, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application alleges discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex in employment and membership in a vocational association. The applicant alleges that sexual harassment by a co-worker while she was working for Metroland (the “employer”) and the response to it by the employer and her union, the Southern Ontario Newsmedia Guild (the “union”) violated the Code. By Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 200 the Tribunal granted leave to the applicant to amend her Application to add an allegation of reprisal based on events that occurred following the filing of her Application.

3This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings dated May 29, 2009 (as supplemented by a further Request dated July 3) and her Request for Order dated June 26 (filed on a response form rather than a request form).

REQUEST TO AMEND THE APPLICATION

4The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings dated May 29, 2009. After reviewing the May 29 Request and a response to the Request, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 924, (the “June 26 decision”). The Tribunal stated, among other things, that although the applicant indicated she wished to amend her Application, it was not clear what order the applicant was seeking. The Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify how she wished to amend her Application, within two weeks of the date of the June 26 decision.

5At the time the Tribunal issued the June 26 decision, I was unaware of correspondence from the applicant dated June 26, addressed to counsel for Metroland and copied to the Tribunal. In this email correspondence the applicant states, among other things, that “she was fired while I was in the middle of my Human Rights Complaint”. She states that “this is an issue which I want the Human Rights to be aware of and I have every intention of making sure it is brought forward.”

6I was also unaware of a Request for Order from the applicant dated June 26, in which she states that she seeks particulars. The Tribunal denies the June 26 Request for particulars as the “explanation” the applicant seeks does not arise out of the Application or Responses as they are framed at this time.

7However, the June 26 Request also contains the following information: the applicant claims she was “wrongfully dismissed”, and asks the Tribunal “address this and direct the respondents to act accordingly and take responsibility for dismissing me just because I have filed a Human Rights Complaint against The Hamilton Spectator…”.

8The applicant filed a further Request for Order on July 3 which appears to respond to the directions in the June 26 decision. In the July 3 Request she states, among other things, “I am seeking financial compensation in the amount of $150,000 for wrongful dismissal while a Human Rights Complain[t] was being addressed.”

9Instead of filing a response to the applicant’s Requests, the respondent the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, Local 87-M (the Union) requests additional particulars from the applicant before it responds. Metroland has stated that the Request for Order should be determined based on the information presently included in it but states that it understands that the deadline for filing a response to the Request will be extended until the Tribunal has determined next steps.

10The Tribunal is satisfied that the material before it identifies with sufficient clarity that the applicant wishes to amend her Application and on what basis. It is evident that she is alleging that she was fired as a result of her ongoing Application. She seeks damages as a remedy. The Tribunal is satisfied that the information provided by the applicant is sufficient to permit the respondents to respond to the Request to amend her Application to include this issue. Although this information is found in several different documents, and is not all included in her May 29 Request, it would be unduly technical not to have regard to the totality of her position as expressed in her different communications.

11The respondents may respond to the Request to amend by Friday, August 14, 2009. The Tribunal will issue a ruling on the Request following that date, which may include further case management directions.

12For the benefit of the applicant, the July 3 Request is made on Form TR-4, which is not the correct form. Form TR-4 is used for cases covered by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code. This Application is not a Transitional Application and is covered by the Tribunal’s general Rules of Procedure. Requests for Order under the Rules of Procedure must be made in Form 10, not Form TR-4.

13As it is not clear what material the applicant sent to the respondents with the July 3 Request, the Tribunal encloses along with this Interim Decision a copy of all attachments to that Request.

14The applicant’s July 3 Request includes a list of documents which she seeks from Metroland for the purpose of the hearing. Metroland may also respond to this part of the Request by Friday, August 14.