HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Columbia Washington

Applicant

-and-

Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, Andre Brazeau, Sylvia Lewis-Havard and Aurelien Leftick

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: May 14, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1089

Indexed as: Washington v. Student Federation of the University of Ottawa

1This Application was filed June 16, 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 in this matter is scheduled to proceed on May 20 and 21, 2010. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to add three persons as respondents to the Application and to address the respondents’ request for production and to make directions for the orderly conduct of the Hearing.

Addition of Personal Respondents

2The three persons sought to be added are Amy Chatting, Mary Ruth Endicott and Tiernoch Mooney. They were not named by the applicant in the original complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission filed on March 30, 2007 because, the applicant asserts, he did not understand that he could name more than three personal respondents as the complaint form only contained space for three names.

3In his original complaint the applicant alleged that the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (“SFUO”) and various named individuals discriminated against him with respect to employment on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, place of origin and race in relation to various student elections.

4The first alleged act of discrimination refers to the applicant’s attempt to seek re-election as Vice-President of External Affairs of the Engineering Student Society (“ESS”) in the 2002/2003 academic year. Amy Chatting, then President of the ESS is alleged to have been involved in this incident. This is the only reference to Ms. Chatting in the complaint.

5The applicant alleges that he sought election as president of the SFUO in 2004. He alleges that he was advised by the Chief Electoral Officer, Tiernoch Mooney that his name had been removed from the candidates list for not providing requested information. This is the only allegation against Tiernoch Mooney.

6The applicant alleges that he sought election as president of the SFUO in 2007 and encountered various difficulties in taking the required language tests because of the actions of Mary Ruth Endicott, SFUO Test Operations Coordinator.

7When the applicant filed the present transitional Application on June 19, 2009, he also filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (TR-4) seeking to add Tiernoch Mooney, Mary Ruth Endicott and Amy Chatting as personal respondents. However, the applicant, who is represented by counsel, did not deliver the Request to the persons sought to be added. The Tribunal did not add the above persons as parties to the proceedings. In all communications with the parties since June 2009, the above persons were not named as parties to the proceedings.

8On April 19, 2010, the applicant’s counsel appeared to notice for the first time the above persons were not named respondents and sought their contact information from the respondents. The respondents provided contact information for Tiernoch Mooney and Mary Ruth Endicott on May 5, 2010 but advised that they did not have any contact information for Amy Chatting.

9On May 10, 2010, the applicant delivered a copy of the Application and a Request for Order seeking to add the above persons to Tiernoch Mooney and Mary Ruth Endicott.

10Amy Chatting has not been provided with notice of the Request to add her as a respondent to this proceeding because neither the applicant nor the respondents have any current contact information for her.

11It would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to add a person as a party to a Tribunal Application when they have not received notice of the Application or the Request to add them as a party. In addition, given the passage of time (since 2002/03) since the alleged discrimination occurred, it would be prejudicial to add this person to the proceedings at this time.

12I find that it is not appropriate to add Tiernoch Mooney and Mary Ruth Endicott as respondents to the Application at this time. The hearing is scheduled for May 20 and 21, 2010 and the addition of these persons at this time will necessarily interfere with these hearing dates. While the applicant did attempt to add them as parties as early as June 2009, he did not complete the process. He did not seek any contact information for them at that time nor attempt to serve them with a copy of the Application or the Request for Order. The applicant ought to have been aware from June 2009 that the above persons were not named parties as the Tribunal correspondence has never named them as parties.

13I am also conscious that the passage of time since their alleged involvement in these incidents (2004 and 2007) militates against adding them to the proceedings at this stage. Finally, if they were acting on behalf of the SFUO at the time of alleged actions, the SFUO would be liable for their actions and the applicant would not be prejudiced by the decision not to add them as personal respondents.

14The Request to add Amy Chatting, Tiernoch Mooney and Ruth Ann Endicott as personal respondents is denied.

Request for Production

15On May 5, 2010, the respondents filed a Request for Order (TR-4) seeking production of various documents which they allege are arguably relevant to the applicant’s claim for damages and with respect to new allegations allegedly raised for the first time in the applicant’s statement of additional facts.

16The time for responding to the TR-4 was abridged and the applicant directed to file a response (TR-5) by May 13, 2010. No response was received.

17In my view this is an appropriate case in which to bifurcate the proceeding to address the issue of liability separately from the issue of remedy, if any. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for May 20 and 21, 2010 will address only whether the applicant’s rights under the Code were breached. If necessary, the hearing will reconvene to address the requested remedies. Accordingly, it is unnecessary at this time to address whether the requested documents relating to remedy are arguably relevant and ought to be produced.

Scope of the Application

18The Tribunal has previously stated that the subject matter of the Application must relate to the subject matter of the original complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The adjudicator hearing this matter will determine the appropriate scope of the Application if there is a dispute and will also address, if necessary, any further requests for production, or any further preliminary matters.

19I am not seized.