Carla Reis v. Cintas Corporation Limited, Julie Mekker and Rudy Thebaud, 2010 HRTO 1274

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carla Reis

Applicant

-and-

Cintas Corporation Limited, Julie Mekker and Rudy Thebaud

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: June 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1274

Indexed as: Reis v. Cintas

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on October 21, 2009. She alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, family status, marital status and reprisal. The respondents deny the allegations.

2The respondents raise a number of preliminary objections. First, they ask that the plaintiff’s representative be removed on the basis that he is neither a licensed lawyer or paralegal and does not fall within an otherwise exempt category under the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, as amended at s. 26.1. The applicant’s representative has responded, stating that he is indeed a licensed paralegal.

3The respondents also argue that the Application is untimely, having been filed 20 months after the applicant’s termination of employment. The respondents argue that the applicant has alleged facts that are patently false in an effort to circumvent the limitation period in the Code. The applicant maintains that “the events, actions, information, comments, and decisions of the responding parties” in respect of the applicant were made on October 22, 2008, one year prior to filing the Application.

4The corporate respondent also seeks removal of the personal respondent, Thebaud, whom they assert has left the country and is not in any event personally implicated in any of the applicant’s allegations. The personal respondent, Mekker, who filed a separate Response, also asks that she be removed from the Application on the basis that she no longer works for the corporate respondent. She categorically denies the applicant’s allegations. The applicant opposes the request to remove the personal respondents on the basis that they both personally subjected her to “continued harassment, discrimination and differential treatment”.

5In the circumstances, it is appropriate to hold a half-day preliminary hearing into the question of delay. At the hearing, the parties should also be prepared to provide submissions and, if necessary, evidence, on the following issues:

I Has the applicant brought this Application within one year after the last discriminatory incident, pursuant to section 34(1)? If not, should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to accept the Application, pursuant to section 34(2)?

II Should the Application be dismissed as against the personal respondents?

6If any of the parties wishes to rely on case law or other supporting material (including calling witnesses) during the hearing, they are directed to deliver this material, and summaries of anticipated witness evidence, to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing.