Kimberly Allen v. Lafarge Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 1989

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Kimberly Allen Applicant

-and-

Lafarge Canada Inc., John Squire and Anson Le Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: November 23, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1989 Indexed as: Allen v. Lafarge Canada

Reasons for Decision

1This is an Application filed April 22, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The hearing is scheduled for December 9, 2009.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for Order during Proceeding filed by the respondents seeking to clarify the subject matter of the Application.

3The original complaint filed November 17, 2006 alleges that the applicant was discriminated against her in employment on the basis of sex and reprised against her for making a complaint. The complaint sets out in some detail events of November 2, 2006 and a comment that she understood to be a reprisal. The complaint mentions that this is the second complaint she made. In part 6 of the complaint, when asked what she had done to stop the discrimination, she states that she filed two previous complaints with identified individuals and had meetings with identified individuals.

4On October 13, 2009, the applicant filed a statement of remedy and submitted the documents she intended to rely upon. Included in her materials was a letter to the Ontario Human Rights Commission dated March 19, 2007 responding to the respondents' response to her original complaint. In that letter she refers to the personal respondent's actions beginning in June 2006, complaining to her supervisor in the summer of 2006, making a written complaint in August 2006. The respondents submit that this is an attempt to expand the subject matter of the original complaint and that these allegations from June 2006 to August 2006 are untimely.

5When read as a whole, the original complaint clearly references an earlier complaint of discrimination and in part 6 specifically references two earlier complaints and meetings. In my view, the letter of March 19, 2007 merely provides further details of the earlier complaints. Accordingly, I find that the March 19, 2007 letter does not expand the subject matter of the Application.

6Regardless of whether the Commission provided the applicant's March 2007 letter to the respondents at that time, they have had it since October 13, 2008 and are not prejudiced by this clarification.

7The request for dismissal on the basis of no prima facie case and abuse of process may be raised with the Member at the hearing.