Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Mukesh Goel
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board, Carol Speers and Susan Hiraishi
Respondents
Interim decisiON
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed As: Goel v. Peel District School Board
1This is an Application filed June 28, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This decision deals with a request made by the respondents that a number of allegations made by the applicant in his statement of additional facts be “struck” because they post date the complaint.
2The human rights complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “complaint”) is dated November 2, 2005. The applicant alleges in the complaint that an interview for a position that he had applied for was suddenly cancelled because he had made a complaint about allegedly racist remarks made by a speaker at the applicant’s school on February 21, 2005. The applicant alleges that after confirming the date and time of his interview for the position in a telephone conversation with Ms. Carol Speers on February 27, 2005, he raised with her what he felt were offensive remarks made by the speaker a few days earlier. The applicant also alleges the he told Ms. Speers that as principal of the school she should have intervened to stop these remarks from being made. On Monday, March 1, 2005 just hours before it was to occur the applicant’s interview was cancelled.
3The applicant also alleges that he was subject to harassment beginning on February 27, 2005 which caused the applicant to collapse at the workplace on May 4, 2005. The applicant alleges that the respondents then prevented him from returning to work until Fall 2005 when he was returned to a position at Fletcher’s Meadow Secondary School.
4In a narrative dated February 5, 2010 attached to a number of documents, the applicant expands on the allegations made in the complaint and summarized above. In addition, there are a number of entirely new allegations that post date the complaint and appear to begin with the applicant’s returning to work at the Fletcher’s Meadow Secondary School in September or October of 2005.
5Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications for Applications under section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Code provides as follows:
12.1 To file a section 53(5) Application an Applicant must complete the Application (Form TR-1), deliver it to the Respondent(s) and file it with the Tribunal. A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and must include all required attachments.
12.2 The completed section 53(5) Application (Form TR-1) must be filed between January 1 and June 30, 2009 and must include:
a) the complaint or the amended complaint filed at the Commission; and,
b) the Commission complaint file number.
12.3 Section 53(5) Applications made in accordance with these Rules must be based on the subject matter of the complaint or amended complaint filed at the Commission.
12.4 Where an Applicant wishes to add parties, combine two or more complaints to be dealt with together as a single application, or, having regard to Rule 12.3, amend the complaint, the Applicant may identify any such requests in their Application.
6The respondents state that the applicant should not be allowed to expand the complaint by the addition of the allegations, etc. set out in the document filed with the Tribunal in February 2010. The applicant states that in order for him to have a fair and just trial, and also in the interest of all those who suffer as a result of systemic discrimination by the respondents, the additional material should be allowed for purposes of the hearing.
7Although the Rules respecting section 53(3) and 53(5) are not identical in that preliminary requests to add parties or amend the subject matter of the complaint would not normally be entertained in a section 53(3) Application, it remains that Rule 12, in accordance with section 53(5) of the Code itself, contemplates that a section 53(5) Application will be based on the subject matter of the complaint that was abandoned at the Commission and filed with the Tribunal.
8Generally speaking, a section 53(5) Application will be limited to the subject matter of the complaint made to the Commission and the Tribunal will only exercise its discretion to allow amendments where it is necessary to ensure to the fair, just and expeditious disposition of the Application. I am not satisfied based on the material filed that it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application to allow the applicant to raise any allegation that post dates the complaint which was filed with the Commission on November 2, 2005. Accordingly, any allegation related to the applicant’s employment at Fletcher’s Meadow Secondary School or that post dates the filing of the complaint at the Commission are struck and the respondents need not respond to them.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of March, 2010.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair