Margery Wardle v. City of Ottawa and Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 503, 2010 HRTO 1658

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Margery Wardle Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa and Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 503 Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: August 10, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1658 Indexed as: Wardle v. Ottawa (City)

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and sexual orientation in the context of employment. She also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

BACKGROUND

2In essence, the applicant alleges that she complained that pornography was being displayed in the workplace. Although she alleges the respondents did not initially address her complaints, she states that by December 2000, the pornography issue had been remedied. She alleges that she began to suffer reprisal measures beginning in January 2001 and ending in August of 2008.

3The applicant has been in receipt of long-term disability benefits (and not actively employed) since September 2004. She alleges that the following reprisal measures continued even after her departure from the workplace: she was contacted repeatedly at home while on medical leave and her grievances were withdrawn or held in abeyance.

4The City of Ottawa (“City”) submitted a Response in which it denies the allegations of discrimination and argues that the Application should be dismissed because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

5The Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE”) and The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 503 (“Local 503”) each filed a Response denying the allegations of discrimination. Local 503 argues, among other things, that the Application is untimely.

6The applicant filed a Reply on February 11, 2010, indicating that she required additional time to respond to the Responses filed by the respondents. She filed a further Reply on February 24, 2010, indicating that she had not received complete copies of the Responses filed with the Tribunal.

7On May 27, 2010, the Tribunal forwarded complete copies of the Responses to the Applicant. The Tribunal’s letter directed the Applicant to provide submissions on the issues of deferral and timeliness to all parties and to the Tribunal by June 10, 2010. The Tribunal advised that it would consider the submissions on deferral and timeliness before turning to the prima facie case issues raised by some of the respondents.

8The applicant did not file submissions in response to the Tribunal’s May 27, 2010 letter.

9In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1458, the Tribunal again directed the applicant to provide written submissions on specific issues related to timeliness. The Tribunal wrote:

If the applicant fails to provide such submissions or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal, the Application may be decided based on the materials already filed or may be dismissed as abandoned.

10The applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal or file submissions as she was directed to do in the Interim Decision.

11The applicant has twice failed to provide submissions in response to direction from the Tribunal. She has not communicated with the Tribunal since February 2010, even though she was advised that her failure to contact the Tribunal might result in the dismissal of her Application on the basis of abandonment.

12In the circumstances, I find that the Application has been abandoned by the applicant. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.