Rowe v. 416 Community Support for Women, 2010 HRTO 415

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shawnette Rowe

Applicant

-and-

416 Community Support for Women and Rosie Smythe

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: February 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 415

Indexed as: Rowe v. 416 Community Support for Women

1This is an Application filed May 19, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Requests for Orders during Proceedings. A hearing in this matter is scheduled for April 20, 2010.

2The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in June 2007 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin. The applicant was employed as a crisis case manager from July 2006 until May 2007. The respondents rely upon a letter of resignation submitted by the applicant indicating that she was resigning for personal reasons.

3The applicant alleges, among other things, that there was conflict between herself and the “European” staff, that she was chosen to serve as a bodyguard because of her ethnic origin, that her involvement with clients of colour was closely scrutinized, that she was demoted and her successor was an untrained White woman. She alleges that she spoke to the Director about the discrimination and also about racial slurs made by white staff but that nothing was done.

4The applicant seeks to amend her complaint to add further particulars. Generally, a formal amendment is not required to provide additional particulars of the subject matter of the complaint and these further particulars are set out in the statement of additional facts. However, the statement of additional facts cannot be used to effectively amend the complaint by adding allegations that do not arise from the original complaint. In determining whether the statement of additional facts merely provides further particulars or actually amends the complaint, the Tribunal is mindful that the original complaint form directs the applicant to restrict the narrative to two pages. Generally, having reviewed the original complaint and the further particulars, I find that the particulars provide more context and detail to the original complaint, except as follows.

5The applicant alleges that she resigned because of the alleged discrimination. This assertion was not found in the original complaint filed in June 2007 although she submitted the letter of resignation on May 17, 2007. In my view, the allegation that the alleged discriminatory treatment led to her resignation does not form part of the subject matter of the present Application.

6The applicant also seeks to add the allegation that the personal respondent interfered with respect to an alternative position offered by a new employer on May 17, 2007 with the result that the offer from the new employer was ultimately rescinded. None of this is set out in the original complaint and does not form the subject matter of the present Application. Nothing in this Interim Decision bars the applicant from making these allegations in a new complaint, subject to the requirements of a section 34 application.

Request to Summons Witnesses

7The applicant requested that various witnesses be summonsed to testify. The Tribunal has already advised the applicant that the Tribunal does not summons witnesses. The Tribunal has provided summonses for the applicant to summons the required witnesses. The related request for an extension to request that further witnesses be summonsed is unnecessary.

Production

8The applicant has asked that the letters of dismissal of Monika Lynto, Paig Itwardie, Nikki Sadore be produced by the respondents. I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that the requested documents are arguably relevant to an issue in this hearing and it is therefore denied. The corporate respondent has confirmed that while the terms of their settlements following their departure from the corporate respondent may be confidential, there is no bar on any of the above persons testifying with respect to the subject matter of this proceeding.