Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Trish-Ann Tremblay Applicant
- and -
1168531 Ontario Inc. o/a Subway and Amy Sue Lalonde Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 2, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2394 Indexed as: Tremblay v. 1168531 Ontario
1The applicant filed this Application on September 8, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging reprisal with respect to employment.
2The applicant alleges that, while at work, a male co-worker verbally abused her by engaging in profanities and derogatory remarks, specifically "bitches" and "sluts". The applicant alleges that her employment was terminated after she reported her concerns to her supervisor and management. The applicant alleges that her dismissal was reprisal for raising concerns regarding the alleged mistreatment and insulting remarks.
3The respondents filed their Response on October 26, 2010, wherein they request the Tribunal dismiss the Application on a preliminary basis. The respondents contend that the Application does not suggest that the applicant experienced any alleged reprisal because of an attempt on her part to claim and enforce her Code rights. The respondents also deny the allegations of reprisal and submit that, once informed of the applicant's concerns, the respondents investigated the matter and concluded the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated.
4The applicant filed a Reply on November 26, 2010, where she reiterates her allegation that she was fired after she notified her employer that she was offended by her co-worker's remarks.
5In my view, the question of whether the Application raises allegations of reprisal based a Code protected ground cannot be determined at this preliminary stage. Given the allegations stated in the Application, I am satisfied that the applicant's allegations, if accepted, may raise concerns with respect to reprisal. The parties contest the alleged incidents. This is a matter that will require an assessment of the facts and evidence, along with an interpretation of the law in the area. The respondents' request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it fails to raise reprisal related to a Code ground is therefore denied, without prejudice to the respondents' right to raise this matter at a later stage in the proceedings.
6The respondents are directed to advise the Registrar in writing within five days if this Interim Decision whether or not they are willing to participate in mediation.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of December, 2010
"signed by"______________
Ena Chadha Vice-chair