Brenda LeFrançois v. Laurentian University of Sudbury, 2009 HRTO 472

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brenda LeFrançois

Applicant

-and-

Laurentian University of Sudbury, Laurentian University Faculty Association and Daniel Cote

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: April 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 472

Indexed as: LeFrançois v. Laurentian University of Sudbury

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) which alleges discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. This Interim Decision will address two Requests for Order during Proceedings (“Request” or “Requests”) that have been filed by the applicant and responded to by the respondents.

2The applicant is a tenured professor with the respondent University. The focus of the Application is the respondents’ handling of an application for promotion submitted by the applicant on September 30, 2008. Specifically, the applicant alleges that certain oral and written comments made about her having taken maternity leaves in the past by representatives of the respondent University in February and March, 2009 may harm her chances of promotion and may result in the denial of that promotion.

3The meeting at which the decision regarding the applicant's promotion will be made will be held on May 4, 2009.

4The first Request dated March 17, 2009 is for an expedited hearing. The applicant argues that once the decision relating to her promotion is made, “the public will be aware of the decision which will increase the pain and suffering I have experienced”.

5The respondent Association submits that the issues in the case are too complex to be addressed in the very near future. The Association also indicates that it intends to bring a number of preliminary objections, which themselves will take a significant amount of time to fully argue. The Association submits that there simply is not time for a full, proper and fair hearing to be held. The Association also points out that the applicant has not yet suffered any discrimination as she has yet to suffer any adverse employment consequences as a result of her maternity leaves, given that her request for promotion has not yet been denied.

6The respondent University and individual respondent support the concerns raised by the Association, indicate that they intend to bring a number of preliminary objections as well, submit that there are no urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application, and further submit that there is no evidence that the applicant will suffer any harm if the request for an expedited hearing is denied.

7Rule 21.2 of the Tribunal's Rules provides as follows:

A Request to Expedite an Application made under Rule 21.1 must describe:

a) any urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application;

b) the harm that would result if the request is denied; and

c) whether the other parties consent to the request.

8In my view, the applicant has not provided a sufficient factual basis to support her application for an expedited hearing. The only concern put forward by the applicant is that the decision (which she speculates will be negative) will become public after the May 4 meeting. This is insufficient evidence of harm that may occur if the Request for the expedited hearing is denied.

9The applicant’s Request for an expedited hearing is therefore denied.

10The applicant’s other Request asks that the respondents be required to not destroy any documents associated with a meeting held on February 26, 2009 to discuss the applicant’s application for promotion. The respondent Association supports the applicant’s Request but goes on to indicate that it does not have custody of the documents in question. The other respondents indicate that they will be producing all existing, relevant documents in accordance with the Tribunal's rules at the appropriate time, with the exception of documents that are subject to either solicitor/client privilege or documents compiled in contemplation of litigation.

11Noting the respondents’ positions, the Tribunal orders that the respondents not destroy any documents associated with the February 26, 2009 meeting, including, but not limited to, any document submitted to the Chair of the meeting for the purposes of being read aloud at the meeting, the written notes taken by the Chair during the meeting and any subsequent draft letters written by the Chair summarizing comments made at the meeting.

12I am not seized of this matter.