Kailani v. Securitas Canada, 2009 HRTO 144

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yaser Kailani

Applicant

• and-

Securitas Canada Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: February 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 144

Indexed as: Kailani v. Securitas Canada

1The applicant filed an Application on July 28, 2008, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex. The application refers to three sets of events: (i) the failure to train the applicant for mobile patrol in July of 2006; (ii) the failure to promote the applicant to site supervisor of Branksome Hall or another site in July 2007; and (iii) the failure to promote the applicant to the position of site supervisor at DHL Express Canada Ltd. in 2007.

2On or about July 10, 2008, the applicant was dismissed from employment by the respondent. The applicant’s union, United Steelworkers Local 5296, grieved the termination. By Memorandum of Settlement dated July 17, 2008 the grievance was settled. The settlement includes the following term:

The griever covenants and agrees that he will not disclose the terms of this memorandum of settlement to any of his former co-workers and will not commence any claim or complaint and will withdraw any claim already filed provided the foregoing is implemented.

3The respondent raises various preliminary issues. It argues that the Application is barred as a result of the language in the Minutes of Settlement. It argues that the first and second allegations occurred more than one year prior to the Application, and therefore that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction pursuant to s. 34 of the Code. Finally, it argues that, even if true, the first and third allegations do not constitute discrimination on the basis of race or sex.

4The Tribunal agrees that the issues raised by the respondent are appropriately dealt with at a preliminary hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal will schedule a one-day hearing to address the following issues:

1. Should the Application be dismissed as a result of the Memorandum of Settlement?

2. Should the first and/or second allegations be struck from the Application as untimely?

3. Should the first and/or third allegations be struck for failing to allege a violation of s. 5 of the Code?

5Each party may, by February 19, 2009, deliver to the other party and file with the Tribunal:

(i) any documents upon which it wishes to rely at the hearing of these issues;

(ii) a written statement of any material facts upon which it relies in relation to these matters; and

(iii) a list of witnesses it wishes to call at the hearing of these matters with a brief summary of the witness’s intended evidence.

No other materials need be exchanged or filed prior to the hearing.

5I am not seized of this matter.