Nyonzima v. Service Employees International Union, 2010 HRTO 593

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Veronique Nyonzima

Applicant

-and-

Service Employees International Union, Local 1 and Douglas McGuigan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: March 18, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 593

Indexed as: Nyonzima v. Service Employees International Union

1This is an Application filed on November 19, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On January 7, 2010, The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 13.2 of its Rules of Procedure, advising the applicant that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in that although it alleges discrimination based on “reprisal or threat of reprisal”, the applicant failed to explain how the respondents’ behaviour was related to section 8 of the Code. The applicant was invited to provide written submissions responding to the issues identified.

3The applicant has filed submissions in response to the Notice. She alleges, among other things, that the respondents were aware of an Application brought by her against her employer under the Code, and that they neglected to offer any assistance to her and were silent and did not support her in a meeting with the employer.

4The Rule 13 Notice is issued before the Tribunal delivers an application to the respondents. The Tribunal will only dismiss the application at this preliminary stage if it is plain and obvious the Application is not within its jurisdiction. A decision not to dismiss an application and to continue to deal with it is not a final decision on the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, or any assessment as to the merits of an application.

5Having regard to the submissions, the Tribunal decides to continue to process the Application and serve it on the respondents. It is not plain and obvious that the matters raised in the Application are not covered by the Code. The respondents will be required to respond to the Application and may raise any issues, preliminary or otherwise, in response.

6The applicant has filed two other Applications arising out of the same events: Tribunal Files 2009-03133-I and 2009-04030-I. Tribunal File 2009-03133-I has been scheduled for mediation on June 10, 2010. If the respondents consent to mediation of this Application, it shall be scheduled on the same date as 2009-03133-I.

7I am not seized of this matter.