Samar Sleiman v. The Participation House Project (Durham Region), 2010 HRTO 1483

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Samar Sleiman

Applicant

-and-

The Participation House Project (Durham Region)

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2936-I

Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: July 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1483

Indexed as: Sleiman v. Participation House Project (Durham Region)

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to: (i) determine a Request to Intervene made by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2936-I (the “union”); (ii) address the respondent’s submission that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that a settlement has been reached between the parties and, (iii) provide further directions.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 4, 2009, alleging discrimination and harassment in employment. In its Response, filed February 22, 2010, the respondent requested deferral of the Application pending completion of a grievance proceeding.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

3The union filed a Request to Intervene on February 19, 2010, indicating that the remedies sought in the Application may impact the terms and conditions of employment of employees in its bargaining unit. The parties have not responded to the union’s Request and the time for doing so has elapsed.

4The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide as follows:

11.1 The Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.

5It appears that the union has an interest in the outcome of the Application, and, in particular, the remedy requested by the applicant. The union’s request to intervene is granted. The extent and the nature of the union’s participation in any future proceedings can be determined by the Vice-chair or Member presiding over the proceedings.

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST TO DISMISS

6In email correspondence to the respondent, the union and the Tribunal, dated March 30, 2010, the applicant indicated that she signed a settlement under “distress” and that she would like to proceed with her Application with the Tribunal. The applicant attached to her email correspondence a copy of “Minutes of Settlement and Release”, signed by the applicant on March 25, 2010.

7By letter to the Tribunal, dated April 6, 2010 and copied to the applicant and the union, the respondent submitted that a settlement had been reached between the parties and the union, resolving the outstanding grievance referred to in the respondent’s Response. As a result, there is no longer any need to defer. The respondent’s position now is that the matter has been fully and finally resolved and the Application should be dismissed on this basis. In email correspondence to the respondent, the union, and the Tribunal, dated April 8, 2010, the applicant confirmed that she would like to continue with her Application.

8Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

9Section 43(2) of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an Application within its jurisdiction without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions. Accordingly, the Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing to consider the following issues:

(i) whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to matters covered by the Application; and,

(ii) whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

10The union may also participate in the half-day hearing and make submissions on the above preliminary issues.

11If any party or the union wishes to rely on additional written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) at the hearing, they are directed to deliver this material to each other and the Tribunal by no later than two weeks before the date of the hearing.

12I am not seized.