Brenda Lant v. Collingwood Nursing Home Limited, Peter Zober and Robert Zober, 2010 HRTO 2103

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brenda Lant Applicant

-and-

Collingwood Nursing Home Limited, Peter Zober and Robert Zober Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 18, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2103 Indexed as: Lant v. Collingwood Nursing Home

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on July 21, 2010 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation or advances, and marital status contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (“Code”).

2The respondents filed a Response on September 23, 2010, in which they request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application without a hearing. The respondents simultaneously filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal. The respondents argue that the Application is not properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because 1) the Application does not raise a prima facie breach of the Code and 2) pursuant to section 45.1, another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the subject-matter of the Application. Specifically, the respondents argue that the Application pertains to events flowing from a personal, romantic relationship between the applicant and respondent Peter Zober and not their employment relationship. The respondents further argue that financial and property matters related to the parties’ interpersonal relationship were dealt with by settlements arising out of claims before the Superior Court Family Division and Landlord and Tenant Board.

3On October 7, 2010, the applicant filed a response opposing the respondents’ Request. The applicant submits that her allegations are properly within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

DECISION

4The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment) on the basis of specific grounds listed in the Code (for example, disability, race, family status, etc.).

5In the present case, the applicant has specified the prohibited grounds of sex, sexual solicitation or advances, and marital status discrimination. Without predetermining the facts and issues, it appears the applicant’s discrimination concerns relate to the termination of her employment as a result of the breakdown of the personal relationship with the individual respondent who was also her employer. While the parties contest the nature of their relationship, there appears to be common ground amongst the parties that the applicant’s employment was involved in the alleged events. The respondents dispute the nature of the human rights concerns and offer a different version of the events. On my review of the material before me, I am not convinced that the question of whether the Application presents valid human rights concerns within a Code protected area can be determined at this preliminary stage. In the circumstances of this Application, it would be premature to decide these issues without providing the parties with an opportunity to present evidence and make submissions on the facts and law. As such, the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application without a hearing is denied.

6The request for dismissal under section 45.1 is also denied. There is no evidence or information indicating that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application and, in particular, the applicant’s human rights sex and marital status employment related concerns. The respondents have not identified any other proceeding which has considered and/or determined the Code-related allegations in the Application.

7Accordingly, the respondents’ requests for early dismissal of the Application are refused.

8I am not seized of this matter.