Carrie Robinson v. United Steelworkers and Tony DePaulo, 2009 HRTO 1959

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carrie Robinson

Applicant

-and-

United Steelworkers and Tony DePaulo

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: November 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1959

Indexed as: Robinson v. United Steelworkers

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for an extension of time to file their Responses (Form 2).

2The applicant is a representative of the respondent union (“the union”) and alleges that the personal respondent discriminated against her on the basis of sex, and engaged in sexual solicitation and reprisal against her. The Application is filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

3The particulars of the Application are contained in 106 paragraphs and make allegations extending back to early 2004.

4The Tribunal forwarded its initial correspondence to the parties on October 9, 2009 and set a deadline of November 13, 2009 for the filing of the respondents’ Responses.

5Counsel for the personal respondent requested, by letter dated November 2, 2009, an extension of time for the filing of his Response until December 11, on the basis that he is one of the candidates in the election for District 6 Director of the union. By letter dated November 3, the Tribunal’s Registrar granted this request, but only until November 27, 2009.

6On November 9, 2009, the union filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“the Request”) seeking an extension for the time to deliver its Response to December 11, 2009. The main reason advanced for the Request is that the union is currently in the midst of referendum elections to elect its leaders and officers, including the District 6 Director position for which the personal respondent is a candidate. These elections are to be held on November 24, 2009.

7The union submits that many of the employees in District 6 who are needed to be interviewed in order to properly prepare the union's Response are actively involved in the elections, even in the evenings and on the weekends. Accordingly, the union submits that it needs until December 11 in order to properly respond to the Application.

8Counsel for the personal respondent supports the union’s Request and submits that if it is allowed, her client should also be provided until December 11, 2009 to file his Response.

9The applicant filed a Response to the Request which opposes the granting of the extension of time. It is submitted that the Request is really a request for reconsideration of the Registrar’s decision. It is further submitted that counsel for the applicant and counsel for the union have been dealing with each other since August 2009, and that the particulars of the Application were provided to counsel for the union on September 21, 2009.

10The request for an extension of time until December 11, 2009 is granted, in favour of both respondents. The allegations made by the applicant are far-reaching and mention many people in the union who allegedly have knowledge of the allegations made by the applicant against the personal respondent. Many of those people are involved in the election process which is occurring in the timeframe required for the delivery of the Responses. The applicant has not alleged that she will suffer any prejudice as a result of a further two week delay in the delivery of the Responses.

10I am not seized of this matter.