Cort v. Suncor Energy, 2010 HRTO 1102

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Loma Cort acting as the Estate of Lorne Cort also known as Eric Johns

Applicant

-and-

Suncor Energy Inc. (formerly Petro Canada), John Chisholm, John Ferris, Ron Brenneman, Nadia Tataryn and Maureen Cividino

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: May 19, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1102

Indexed as: Cort v. Suncor Energy

1This is an Application dated November 22, 2009, made under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant has requested that this matter be scheduled for hearing along with 19 other Applications before the Tribunal. Those Applications have been described in Interim Decisions of the Tribunal: see Ellis v. Petro-Canada, 2009 HRTO 1430 and other related decisions. The hearing in those other matters is scheduled for June 7, 2010.

3In a previous Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 853, the Tribunal dismissed part of this Application on the basis that certain allegations were untimely. The remaining allegations relate to decisions made by the corporate respondent at the time of a refinery closure. The Tribunal has not yet determined the timeliness of this remaining issue, and has also not yet determined whether the applicant may initiate this Application under the Code acting as the estate of her deceased son.

4It does appear that the issue raised in this Application about the refinery closure overlaps with the issues being litigated in Ellis v. Petro-Canada and others. However, given the significant preliminary issues on this Application, the Tribunal does not find it appropriate to direct that this Application be joined for hearing with those other Applications. When a decision is issued in Ellis v. Petro-Canada and the others, the Tribunal will consider what effect to give to that decision in determining this Application, if necessary.

5This Application will therefore proceed on its own.

6The Tribunal notes that the applicants in Ellis v. Petro-Canada and the other related Applications have withdrawn their Applications against all personal respondents. The Tribunal has stated in the past that:

[t]he unnecessary naming of personal respondents is a practice to be discouraged, as this serves to unnecessarily add to the complexity of proceedings and can often operate as a roadblock to resolution. Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board et al, 2008 HRTO 14

7In this Application, the corporate respondent states that none of the named respondents are still employed by it, and have not been made aware of these proceedings. The Tribunal will request the applicant to indicate whether she still intends to proceed with the Application against the personal respondents.

8The corporate respondent has filed a Response in Form 2, but has stated that it requires further information from the applicant before responding to the issues of timeliness and whether the estate can initiate this Application. It has indicated that it agrees to mediation.

9In view of the material before it, the Tribunal makes the following directions

• The corporate respondent’s Response will be delivered to the applicant.
• The applicant is directed to file a Reply to the Response, which should also address the issues raised by the corporate respondent in its letter of May 12, 2010.
• The applicant is directed to indicate whether she agrees to mediation. If she consents, the Tribunal will schedule mediation. If she does not, the matter will be scheduled for hearing and the Tribunal will issue case management directions.
• The applicant is directed to indicate whether she wishes to proceed against the personal respondents.
• The applicant’s Reply as well as her responses to the issues raised above must be delivered to the corporate respondent and filed with the Tribunal by June 3, 2010.

10I am not seized of this matter.