Hoekstra v. Bethel Christian Reformed Church, 2010 HRTO 2124

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 VanEk, Bert Hofland, Jim Pot, Len VanderLugt, Mark Vanderveen Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: October 20, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2124 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. Prior to the Application being delivered to the respondents, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss with respect to delay and whether certain named individuals should remain as respondents.

2Pursuant to an Interim Decision, (2010 HRTO 1546), the applicant's Application was allowed to proceed, but certain individuals named as personal respondents were removed as respondents. The Tribunal's Notice had specifically 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 had provided more detail about her allegations against both the corporate and the "individual named respondents" but, in my view, did not identify acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code against these individuals.

3The applicant has filed a Request for Reconsideration ("Request") of the Interim Decision. The applicant's Request states that all of the individuals that were excluded, as well as another individual, Mike Tigchelaar, are named in the Bethel Christian Reformed Church directory of members as elders of the Church, and, as such, members of the "Consistory" during the time in which decisions were taken by the Church that are alleged by the applicant to breach the Code. The applicant cites "Church Order Articles 12 a and 25 b" and commentary as support for her view that the named individuals were responsible for the impugned decisions, as the Church Order requires that they work in concert "to eliminate the possibility of regulation by just a small minority of persons". This information, in my view, provides an alleged link between the individuals and at least one governing body of the named corporate respondents.

4As a preliminary matter, I note that this is not a reconsideration in respect of the participation of Mr. Tigchelaar in this Application. The applicant did not include him as a respondent in her Application, and may not add him as a respondent without applying to amend her Application.

5Section 45.7(1) of the Code provides that a "party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal rules". The Rules elaborate on the conditions and requirements of such a request. Rule 26.1 states that "[a]ny party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days from the date of the decision." In Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board., 2008 HRTO 34, the Tribunal decided that a decision not to add a party can be considered a "final" decision, on the basis that it disposes of some or all of the central issues between parties. By extension, it appears to me that a decision to remove parties as respondents can be considered "final" for the purpose of the Rules.

6Pursuant to Rule 26.5, reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

7The new information given by the applicant was apparently known to her when she responded to the Tribunal's request that she explain why the named individuals should be included. These allegations of fact certainly should have been stated earlier. The applicant, who is self-represented, appears simply to have omitted to explain certain facts concerning why certain named individuals had been included as respondents.

8The only consideration at play here is therefore whether other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions. The applicant has not noted any such considerations, and I do not find that reconsideration is warranted in these circumstances.

9The applicant clearly believes that the individuals who were not included as respondents have breached the Code, although she has not clearly stated how they have done so in her written materials.

10Section 40 of the Code provides that the Tribunal must deal with Applications "by adopting the procedures and practices provided for in its rules or otherwise available to the Tribunal which, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the applications". Section 36 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may add parties, so it remains open to the applicant to submit further information and request that this be done, if she wishes to do so, later in the process. This must be done through delivering to the proposed and existing respondents, and filing with the Tribunal, a Request for Order During Proceedings setting out the grounds on which they should be added. It is worth noting that the Tribunal has in a number of cases removed or refused to add personal respondents, especially where a corporate respondent expresses itself as willing to accept liability for the actions and omissions of personal respondents who are officers or employees of the corporate respondent. See for example, Sigrist and Carson v. London Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 14, Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, and Winter v. Arnprior (Town), 2009 HRTO 713.

11The request for reconsideration is dismissed. I am not seized of this matter.