HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marilynn Monnier
Applicant
-and-
St. Joseph’s Lifecare Centre, Louise VanKruistum and Alice Curtis
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Monnier v. St. Joseph’s Lifecare Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Marilynn Monnier, Applicant ) On her own behalf
St. Joseph’s Lifecare Centre, ) Veronica Kenny, Louise VanKruistum and Alice Curtis, ) Counsel Respondents )
1This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ request that this Application be dismissed because it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 350 (the “Interim Decision”), the Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear this Application.
2The applicant filed her written submissions on April 1, 2009, but failed to deliver them to the respondents. She was asked to do so by the Tribunal and complied by April 15, 2009. The respondents argue that the Tribunal should disregard the applicant’s submissions as she breached the order set out in Tribunal’s Interim Decision directing the applicant to file with the Tribunal and deliver her submissions to the respondents by April 8, 2009. The respondents do not argue that they were prejudiced by this delay. In light of the importance of this issue to the applicant, it would not be appropriate to grant the relief requested by the respondents.
3In her Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal or threat of reprisal by the respondents. In light of the definition of reprisal set out in the Interim Decision the applicant states she was in error citing it as a ground. She does state, however: “I was told by the legal office that I was “terminated” because I had a filed a “Human Rights Complaint.”” It is not clear what “legal office” or “Human Rights Complaint” the applicant is referring to. At the time she filed this Application, her employment had already been terminated.
4In addition to reprisal, the applicant also alleges in her Application that she was subject to workplace harassment, although she does not link this harassment to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The nature of the alleged harassment was unfair criticism of the applicant’s work and veiled threats concerning her likely termination.
5In her written submissions, the applicant states that the criticisms of her work sometimes included criticisms of her “mental capacity,” her “weight” and her age. She alleges that her supervisor would link perceived problems with her cognitive ability to her age. If proven, these comments could amount to discrimination on the basis of age, disability or perceived disability.
6The respondents, in their written response submissions, argue that these allegations are not part of the conduct set out in the Application, and should not be considered in determining jurisdiction. However, it is clear that the applicant is alleging that these comments were made during the period of her brief employment with St. Joseph’s Lifecare Centre, the very period that is the subject matter of the Application. Although lengthy, the applicant’s recitation of the facts in the Application does not purport to include every hurtful remark made to her. Indeed, many of the allegations set out in the Application are of a general nature, and not well particularized. The more detailed allegations in her written submissions are not inherently inconsistent with the more general allegations in her Application.
7For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the Application at this juncture as being outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
8As the parties have indicated their willingness to participate in a mediation, this Application will proceed to mediation. The Registrar will provide the parties with notice of the date and location of the mediation.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of April, 2009.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair