Bernard v. Lakehead University, 2009 HRTO 2228

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jean-Yves Bernard

Applicant

-and-

Lakehead University, Lakehead University Faculty Association, Gillian Siddall, Ray Raslack, Laurie Hayes, and Frederick Gilbert

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: December 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2228

Indexed as: Bernard v. Lakehead University

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to clarify the addition of a respondent named in the Response filed by Lakehead University and the personal respondents and to provide direction with respect to how this Application will proceed.

Adding a Respondent

2On their Response, Lakehead University and the personal respondents indicated that Lakehead University Faculty Association (“LUFA”) should be named as an additional respondent. They also provided in their Response the first and last name of an individual associated with LUFA who LUFA has since identified as Professor Joey Farrell and not Dr. Farrell Joey, the name the Tribunal used in a Notice to Named Respondent. Given that the University and the personal respondents have confirmed that they want only LUFA, not Professor Farrell as an additional respondent, it would appear that Professor Farrell was named by the respondents in their Response as a contact person for LUFA, and not a respondent. The Tribunal therefore adds LUFA as a respondent, and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

3The Tribunal has already provided Professor Farrell, the president of LUFA, with a copy of the Notice of Application, the Application and the Response. The Tribunal will provide LUFA with a copy of the Reply filed by the Applicant along with this Interim Decision. LUFA has 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file its Response. Any further Reply which the applicant may wish to make must be filed and served within 14 days of LUFA’s Response. While this is a bilingual file, the parties should note that the Tribunal does not translate any documents filed by the parties.

Proceeding Directions

4The Response filed by the University and the personal respondents refers to an Application by Ronald Harpelle (the “Harpelle Application”). The respondents describe the instances cited by Dr. Harpelle and the Applicant to be the same or similar. The Harpelle Application is filed against all but one of the respondents in this Application. LUFA was added in the Harpelle Application as it has now been added here. Both the applicant in this case and Dr. Harpelle are agreeable to mediation. As well, all respondents who have filed a Response in each Application to date are agreeable to mediation. Given the circumstances and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal will schedule mediation and both Applications will proceed together for the purposes of mediation. A copy of this Interim Decision will be provided to the parties in the Harpelle Application. This is not a decision as to whether the Applications will be consolidated or heard together should the Applications not resolve at mediation.

5I am not seized.