Fitzpatrick v. Barricks Gold Hemlo Mine, 2010 HRTO 2299

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Agnes Fitzpatrick

Applicant

-and-

Barricks Gold Hemlo Mine and Pic River First Nation

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: November 22, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2299

Indexed as: Fitzpatrick v. Barricks Gold Hemlo Mine

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Agnes Fitzpatrick, Applicant )

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 16, 2010. The applicant alleges that she was discriminated in respect of employment on the basis of age.

2On October 21, 2010 the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2130, after the applicant failed to appear for a teleconference scheduled to consider whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis of delay and whether there is a release that prevents the Application from proceeding. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the Tribunal and counsel for the respondents with written submissions confirming her updated contact information including mailing address, telephone number and e-mail address as well as providing the information requested by the Tribunal in its August 3, 2010 letter. The August 3, 2010 letter directed the applicant to provide the Tribunal and the respondents a copy of her complaint to the Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Labour referred to in earlier submissions. The letter further stated that the applicant should provide information about why the filing of her Application was delayed including identifying the person or persons she consulted and the information they provided that may have affected the filing of the Application. The Interim Decision stated that failure to provide the requested information including a satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s failure to date to provide the information requested in the August 3, 2010 letter might result in the Tribunal declaring the applicant’s Application abandoned.

3The Tribunal has received written submissions from the applicant in response to its October 21, 2010 Interim Decision as well as an email from the applicant providing up to date contact information. The submissions have been copied to the respondents’ counsel, the email has not. The submissions provide a narrative account of events related to the applicant’s Application, her interactions with the respondents and the Employment Standards Branch as well as providing a number of other documents, primarily emails exchanged between the applicant and the respondents. The submissions are difficult to understand.

4The submissions partially address the Tribunal’s request. The applicant has not provided a copy of her complaint to the Employment Standards Branch. There are references in her submissions and attached e-mails to such a complaint and it appears that the applicant thought this complaint had been provided to the respondents (see e-mails exchanged between the applicant and Marian Turgeon dated July 27 and 28, 2010).

5The applicant provides some information as to to her interactions with the respondents and the Employment Standards Branch. She states she was confused about how to complain about harassment and discrimination she alleges occurred while she was working for the respondents. This material is confusing. The applicant’s reasons for why she delayed filing her Application with the Tribunal are not particularly clear.

6I have considered these submissions in light of the requests made by the Tribunal in its October 21, 2010 Interim Decision. I find that that the applicant has not provided the information requested, certainly not in a clear, cogent manner. However, in my view there is an issue as to the applicant’s ability to provide such information clearly in written form. Under the circumstances I am not prepared to declare this Application abandoned. I am of the view that the appropiate next step is to proceed with another teleconference with the parties.

7The applicant will be expected to orally present her evidence and her submissions during the teleconference to consider whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis of delay and whether there is a release that prevents the Application from proceeding. This process may be more effective in clarifying the applicant’s position. If the applicant wants to rely on any written materials not currently before the Tribunal, for example documents related to her complaint to the Employment Standards Branch she must file these materials with the Tribunal with copies to the respondents’ counsel at least two weeks prior to the scheduled teleconference.

8The applicant is also directed to immediately provide her current contact information to the respondents’ counsel.

9I am not seized of this matter.