Dixon v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2010 HRTO 2223

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joyce Dixon

Applicant

-and-

Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 5, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2223

Indexed as: Dixon v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Application against the individual respondent should be dismissed.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 6, 2010, which alleged that the organization respondent, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (“Sunnybrook”), who is her employer, and the individual respondent, Constance Belfon, who is her Union representative, discriminated against her because of her disability with respect to employment.

3Specifically, she alleged that Sunnybrook, with the aide and abetment of her Union (the Ontario Nurses’ Association (“ONA”)), failed to accommodate her needs related to her disability to the point of undue hardship. ONA was not named as a respondent in this Application. Furthermore, although Ms. Belfon is mentioned in the narrative of the Application, there are no specific allegations of discrimination against her.

4Prior to filing this Application, the applicant filed a separate Application (File No: 2010-05322-I) on April 1, 2010, and made similar allegations against ONA. She did not name Ms. Belfon as an individual respondent in that Application, but on page 17 identified her as a contact person for ONA.

5Ms. Belfon filed a Response to this Application on August 25, 2010, which indicated that she was confused by the manner in which she was named as a respondent, and requested that the Application against her be dismissed because there are no allegations of discrimination against her. She also stated that any allegations with respect to her involvement in this matter will be addressed in the proceeding against ONA.

6Sunnybrook filed a Response on September 15, 2010, which denied the allegations of discrimination. There is no reference to Ms. Belfon in the Response.

7The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on September 29, 2010, which decided to hold a summary hearing with respect to the Application against ONA.

8The applicant filed a Reply on September 30, 2010, which did not address Ms. Belfon’s request to dismiss the Application against her, or why Ms. Belfon was named as a respondent in this Application rather than the Application against ONA.

9In my view, the Application against Ms. Belfon does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. There are no specific allegations of discrimination against her in the Application, and the applicant’s Reply fails to explain how she is alleged to have breached the Code. Furthermore, the applicant did not name Ms. Belfon as a respondent in her Application against ONA.

10The Tribunal therefore orders that Ms. Belfon be removed as a respondent to the Application. The style of cause shall be amended accordingly.

11The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to ONA.

12Given that the applicant and Sunnybrook have both indicated a willingness to participate in mediation, the file will be placed in the queue for scheduling a mediation in this matter.

13I am not seized of this matter.