Hoekstra v. Bethel Christian Reformed Church, 2010 HRTO 1546

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Barbara Hoekstra

Applicant

-and-

Bethel Christian Reformed Church, Christian Reformed Church in North America Ontario Corporation, Christian Reformed Church in North America Michigan Corporation, Arie VanEek, Bert Hofland, Jim Pot, Len VanderLug and Mark Vanderveen

Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: July 16, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1546

Indexed as: Hoekstra v. Bethel Christian Reformed Church

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 March 17, 2010, alleging discrimination in respect of goods, services and facilities on the ground of sex. Among other things, the applicant alleges that when she approached her church in regard to abuse and adultery on the part of her husband, who held a senior position within the church, she was denied requested services, asked to resign from positions that she had held within the church, and was shunned and eventually forced to resign from her church.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, in part because the Application appeared to have been filed more than one year after the date of the last incident of alleged discrimination, and in part because the Application did not allege specific acts of discrimination against some of the individuals and organisations named as respondents. The Application has not yet been delivered to the respondents.

Delay

3Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

4Although the events alleged in the Application commenced in 2005, the applicant’s written submissions clarify that she went through a lengthy internal process within the respondent church in attempting to resolve allegations of discriminatory treatment. Her submissions in response to the Notice identify a last event in June of 2009, in which she alleges that the respondent refused the opportunity to request an investigation at the highest level of internal appeal on the basis of her sex. The Application itself also indicates that an employment opportunity in 2009 was withdrawn, and although the Application gives little detail, the narrative implies that the loss of employment opportunity was connected with shunning.

5In my view, the applicant’s response to the Notice has added sufficient clarity that it is not plain and obvious that the Application should be dismissed for delay. It appears at this stage that a series of incidents within the meaning of s.34(1), the last of which occurred in June 2009, is alleged in this Application.

Inclusion of Parties

6The Tribunal’s Notice requested that the applicant explain why Arnie DeHoop, Chris deBoer, Geoff Lammers, Hans VanderStoep, Howard VanderMeer, Jack Jagt, John Shuurman, Ken Slagter, Marcel VanderHoevan, Mike Vajda and Steve VanHoffen had been named as respondents. The applicant’s submissions do not provide information that addresses this question. The Application does not allege any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code against these individuals. Accordingly, they will be removed as respondents to this Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.

7The Tribunal’s Notice had also asked that the applicant explain why Christian Reformed Church in North America, Ontario Corporation and Christian Reformed Church in North America, Michigan Corporation had been named as respondents. At this point, the applicant’s submissions have provided sufficient additional information that it is not plain and obvious that they should be excluded.

8I am not seized of this matter.