Wendy Ramsumair v. CUPE Local 5001, 2010 HRTO 1147

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Wendy Ramsumair

Applicant

-and-

CUPE Local 5001, Charles Van Vliet, Chris Marneris and Eduardo Domingues

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: May 20, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1147 Indexed as: Ramsumair v. CUPE Local 5001

1The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal in membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex and association. In addition to naming her union local as the organizational respondent, the applicant also named four individual respondents.

2This Interim Decision addresses the Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to remove the one of those individual respondents, Victor Trotman, as a respondent to these proceedings. The RFOP was served on the applicant, but she did not file a Response to it. Although the applicant filed a Reply subsequent to receipt of the RFOP, which addressed the remaining respondents’ request to defer, she did not make any submissions in support of continuing her Application against Mr. Trotman.

3The Application refers to a meeting of CUPE Local 5001 held on September 15, 2009, and subsequent issues she had with individuals in that bargaining unit. Victor Trotman is the Senior Director Labour Relations with the University Health Network. He is not a member of CUPE Local 5001. His only connection with the events that gave rise to the Application is that he allowed CUPE Local 5001 access to a room in which to hold the meeting on September 15, 2009.

4As pointed out in the RFOP, there is “no causal link” between this action and the allegations against CUPE Local 5001 and the other individual respondents. Moreover, the applicant makes no independent allegation against Mr. Trotman on which a violation of the Code could be founded. Accordingly, there is no basis for maintaining the Application against him and I order him removed as a respondent to this proceeding.

5As referenced above, the remaining respondents asked that this matter be deferred because the applicant had brought an application before the Labour Relations Board on the basis of the same allegations found in her Application to this Tribunal. However, subsequent to that request, the applicant withdrew her Labour Board application and so it is not necessary to address this issue.

6I am not seized of this matter.