Nafisa Mohamed v. ACTRA Toronto Performers, 2009 HRTO 1602

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nafisa Mohamed Applicant

-and-

ACTRA Toronto Performers Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: October 5, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1602 Indexed as: Mohamed v. ACTRA

1This is an Application filed December 23, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) is scheduled for November 24 and 25, 2009.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for Orders during Proceeding filed by the respondent requesting to strike some of the applicant’s pleading and for further particulars, and to ensure for the orderly conduct of the hearing.

3The applicant alleges that she experienced discrimination on the basis of marital status, sex, colour, ethnic origin, creed and race and faced reprisals during her tenure as a member of the executive of the ACTRA Toronto Extras Caucus. The allegations in the complaint originally filed with the Commission on June 5, 2006 begin in July 2005 and continue until March 2006. In June 2009, the applicant filed further additional facts beginning in February 2003. In August 2009, the applicant filed further additional facts relating to events as far back as 2002.

4The subject matter of the Application before the Tribunal is restricted to the allegations set out in the original complaint and is therefore limited to the allegations between July 2005 and March 2006. Accordingly, all allegations prior to and after this time do not form part of this Application and will not be dealt with at the hearing.

5The alleged discrimination between July 2005 and March 2006 consists of:

• July 4, 2005 request for Rules Book (nexus to prohibited grounds unexplained).

• Emails and questions went unanswered by ACTRA caucus member (dates and times unknown and how this is discriminatory unexplained).

• Experienced comments such as “chocolate mousse”, the “dating game” and attitudinal behaviours; “chocolate mousse” comment made at July 5, 2005 meeting (no details of who made the other comment or displayed the attitudinal behaviours or when).

• Hideous and scandalous statements by Ms. Thompson (dates and times unspecified and nexus to prohibited grounds unexplained).

• Spoken to disrespectfully by Ms. Begnell on November 16, 2005 (nexus to prohibited grounds unexplained).

• Comments such as “thong bikini” age-related comments (by Ben White) and vegetarian related comments and a “caucus” comment (by President of ATP) were made during a Caucus meeting on December 6, 2005; Theresa Tora initiated and set the tone for the behaviour.

• Comments about breasts made by Ms Begnell and Ms. Pascall at August 18, 2005 meeting.

• Email exchange with Ms. Thompson in February 2006 (nexus to prohibited grounds unexplained).

• Meeting on March 16, 2006 and expulsion from the Extras Caucus (nexus to prohibited grounds unexplained).

6I direct that the applicant provide further particulars on the matters set out in the brackets above, within 10 days of receipt of this Interim Decision.

7All other allegations outside the period July 2005 to March 2006 are struck.