Miraglia v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 2205

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lina Miraglia

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glenn Murray, Carroll Robinson, Fay Patey, Frances McKeague, Mike Zimmerman and Noreen Alleyne

Respondents

-and-

Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: November 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2205

Indexed as: Miraglia v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1The applicant filed this Application on February 12, 2009, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age. Since that time, the parties have filed a number of requests for orders and responses, which are enumerated below. This Interim Decision addresses the various requests.

2The first Request for Order During Proceeding, dated April 17, 2009, was filed by the applicant, who asked to amend her Application by adding further particulars. Although the applicant did not select the box indicating this, she also requested production of documents from the respondents in this Request. The respondents' Response to the Request for Order notes that the respondents were not opposed to the amendment, but indicate that they believed the Request for production was premature. This Request was superseded by a subsequent Request for production, dated October 23, 2009, discussed below.

3The Association representing the applicant, the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario ("AMAPCEO"), submitted a Request to Intervene on May 7, 2009. Initially, a Response filed on behalf of all but one respondent, Carroll Robinson, indicated opposition to this Request, while both Ms Robinson and the applicant advised the Tribunal they did not oppose the request to intervene. Subsequently, the parties have all consented to an order granting AMAPCEO intervenor status.

4The applicant made a Request for a Tribunal Inquiry on May 27, 2009. On June 11, 2009, the respondents sent in a Response to her Request, stating their opposition to such an Inquiry. The applicant filed further submissions, dated June 18, 2009, responding to the respondents' Response.

5On September 29, 2009, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an order removing the individual respondents from the Application. The applicant filed a Response opposing this Request.

6In the meantime, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation for October 7, 2009. The parties were able to reach agreement on a number of procedural matters, including a timeline for filing responses, arguably relevant documents and any requests for orders arising from the production orders.

7In the period that followed the mediation, the applicant filed a lengthy Request for production from the respondents on October 23, 2009. The respondents filed a Response opposing the applicant's Request for production. They also filed a Request for Order dismissing portions of the Application. The applicant filed her Response opposing the respondents' Request to dismiss on February 18, 2010.

Intervention

8Where there is a bargaining unit which represents the applicant, the Tribunal generally grants it intervenor status in light of its interest in the possible outcome of the application. Given the parties' consent, intervenor status is granted to AMAPCEO.

Case Management Hearing

9There are still a large number of Requests for Order that have still not been addressed. They are as follows:

1. The applicant's April 17, 2009 request to amend her Application;
2. The applicant's May 17, 2009 request for a Tribunal ordered Inquiry;
3. The respondents' September 29, 2009 request to remove the individual respondents;
4. The applicant's October 23, 2009 request for production; and
5. The respondents' December 16, 2009 request for dismissal of portions of the Application.

10The Tribunal requires further clarification from the applicant on the first issue. The remaining requests are inter-related, and require further submissions from the parties. The Tribunal will schedule an in-person half-day hearing in order to hear oral submissions from the parties, following which it will rule on these outstanding Requests.

11The parties are ordered to deliver to the other parties, and file with the Tribunal any case-law on which it intends to rely seven days prior to the hearing.

12I am not seized of this matter.