Walker v. Arbor Memorial Services, 2009 HRTO 736

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Catherine Walker

Applicant

-and-

Arbor Memorial Services Inc.

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Janice Stoppa

Applicant

-and-

Arbor Memorial Services Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: June 2, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 736

Indexed as: Walker v. Arbor Memorial Services

1[1] The applicant Catherine Walker filed an Application on March 16, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant Janice Stoppa filed an Application on March 16, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Code. Ms. Walker and Ms. Stoppa are sisters, were employed by the respondent, and were terminated on the same date.

2On April 30, 2009 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 542 and Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 543 ordering each applicant to file submissions on the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear her Application. In particular, the Tribunal sought clarification of each applicant’s allegations that she had been subject to reprisal under the Code and asked each applicant to explain how the reprisal was linked on her part to claim or enforce rights under the Code. The Tribunal also stated that following submissions, if necessary, the Tribunal would also address each applicant’s outstanding Request for Order During Proceedings about her application and her sister’s Application proceeding together.

Reprisal Allegations

3The Tribunal has received each applicant’s submissions, as well as each applicant’s Reply filed after the respondent filed its Response and after the Interim Decisions were issued. Each applicant alleges that a co-worker had made allegations of harassment on the basis of mental health issues against another employee. Each applicant alleges that she was interviewed as part of an investigation into the allegations of her co-worker and during the interview supported some of the allegations made by her co-worker. Each applicant submits that following the investigation she was terminated and alleges that this is a reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

4It is not plain and obvious on the face of each Application that this matter is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with each Application.

Hearing Applications Together

5Both applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings in April 2009 requesting that their Applications be heard together. The respondent did not file a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings and the time limit for filing this has now passed.

6In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together. This is expressly indicated in Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. I have decided that these two Applications will be heard together given the facts and issues common to both Applications.

7Having reviewed both the Walker and Stoppa Applications (and the Responses and Replies) I find that there is a significant overlap in facts and issues in the two Applications. I am of the opinion that the most fair just and expeditious way in which to adduce evidence as to what occurred during the investigation of the co-worker and the reasons for the termination and for a Tribunal member to assess this evidence is for the two Applications to be heard together.

8Since both applicants and the respondent to both Applications have indicated a willingness to mediate, the Tribunal will schedule one mediation date for both Applications.

Order

9The Tribunal makes the following order:

1. The Tribunal will continue to deal with both Applications;

2. The Applications will be scheduled to be heard together;

3. Because the parties have expressed a willingness to mediate, the Tribunal will schedule one mediation date for both Applications.

10I am not seized of these matters.