minicounsel

Stanley Czerniak v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Jay Hope, 2010 HRTO 164 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

January 26, 2010

Stanley Czerniak v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Jay Hope, 2010 HRTO 164

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment. The respondent Ministry sought early dismissal, arguing the application was barred by a comprehensive release signed by the applicant and was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code. The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to participate in a telephone conference call hearing to provide oral submissions on the issues of the release and delay, including the factors of good faith and substantial prejudice.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stanley Czerniak Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Jay Hope Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: January 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 164 Indexed as: Czerniak v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

[1] This is an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) which alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, sex, family status, age, record of offences as well as reprisal.

[2] The applicant was a long service employee of the respondent Ministry whose employment came to an end in August, 2008. Towards the end of his employment, the applicant made a number of OPS Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy complaints. On August 13, 2008, the applicant entered into minutes of settlement with the Ministry which contained a comprehensive release of all claims arising out of his employment. On August 15, 2008, the personal respondent forwarded a letter to the applicant which advised that the investigation of his complaints did not substantiate them and as a result, no further action would be taken. The applicant states that he did not receive this letter until August 27, 2008. This Application was filed on August 26, 2009.

[3] The Ministry filed a Response seeking early dismissal of the Application without the necessity to file a full Response. The Ministry relies on the release signed by the applicant. The Ministry also suggests that the Application is out of time under the one-year timeframe established in section 34(1) of the Code.

[4] The applicant filed a Response as directed by a letter from the Registrar which confirms that the subject matter of his Application is the letter from the personal respondent dated August 15, 2008. He also makes certain arguments as to why the release that he signed does not bar his Application and as to why his Application is not barred by section 34(1).

[5] This is an appropriate case to receive oral submissions from the parties on the two issues raised by the Ministry by way of a telephone conference call hearing. With respect to the issue of delay, the parties should be prepared to address the factors of “good faith” and “substantial prejudice” identified in s.34(2) of the Code.

[6] If the parties have any documents or case law that they intend to rely on during the telephone conference call, they are directed to provide those documents and cases to the other, and to file them with the Tribunal, at least 14 days prior to the scheduled conference call hearing date.

[7] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 26^th day of January, 2010.

“Signed By”

Alan Whyte

Vice-chair