Adam v. Annette’s Donuts, 2010 HRTO 1661

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fatma Adam

Applicant

-and-

Annette’s Donuts Ltd. and Rommel Jitman

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Fatma Adam

Applicant

-and-

Annette’s Donuts and Amine Baehan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: August 10, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1661

Indexed as: Adam v. Annette’s Donuts

1The applicant has filed two Applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses whether the two Applications should be scheduled for mediation together and whether a Response to the second Application is required.

2The first Application, 2009-02787-I, was filed by the applicant on June 29, 2009 (“the 2009 Application”). It alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and names the applicant’s employer, Annette’s Donuts Ltd. and the applicant’s manager, Rommel Jitman. This Application specifically alleges that the applicant’s employment was terminated after the respondents refused to accommodate the applicant’s allergies. The Application contains a brief account of events.

3On October 15, 2009 the respondents provided a joint Response to the 2009 Application.

4The second Application, 2010-04989-I, was filed on February 24, 2010 (“the 2010 Application”). This Application alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal or threat of reprisal. The 2010 Application provides a detailed narrative of the applicant’s work experience at Annette’s Donuts Ltd., the onset of the applicant’s allergies and the events that lead up to and culminate in the applicant’s employment being terminated. The 2010 Application names Annette’s Donuts Ltd. and the applicant’s immediate supervisor, Amine Baehan, as respondents.

5The respondents named in the 2010 Application have not filed a Response.

6On May 17, 2010, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation for the parties to the 2009 Application on June 23, 2010. On May 27, 2010, the corporate respondent e-mailed the Tribunal to ask that the two Applications be “merged” so that both could be scheduled for mediation together. On June 14, 2010, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant did not object to the two Applications being merged so that they could be mediated together. The mediation scheduled for the 2009 Application has been postponed in order to resolve this request and the further issue of whether, under the circumstances, a Response or Responses is required for the second Application.

7These two Applications are closely related. Indeed, the 2010 Application is essentially a more in depth account of the alleged events that occurred while the applicant was employed by the corporate respondent. I am satisfied, given the overlap in the allegations, that these two Applications should be scheduled for mediation together.

8However, as noted above, the respondents in the 2010 Application have not filed a Response. They are required to do so notwithstanding that these two Applications will be scheduled for mediation together and are closely related. The 2010 Application names different respondents, provides more detailed allegations, raises a further basis of discrimination (that the applicant was subject to reprisal for having indicating that she needed to be accommodated) and requests different remedies. Having regard to the circumstances, the respondents to the 2010 Application, Annette Donuts Inc. and Amine Baehan are required to provide a Response or Responses to the 2010 Application within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision. A mediation will be scheduled after a Response or Responses are received and the applicant has had an opportunity to provide a further Reply.

9I am not seized of this matter.