Dopelhamer v. Sobeys, 2011 HRTO 1139

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Dopelhamer

Applicant

-and-

Sobeys Ontario Division, Sobeys Kanata #877, Andrew Johnson, John Leblanc, Linda Lavergne, Linda Roy, Natasha Scorniaechi, Stacey Cape, Stephanie Switzerand and Steve Nakic

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 13, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1139

Indexed as: Dopelhamer v. Sobeys

1This is an Application filed on June 30, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in respect of employment because of disability. The Application named two organizations and fifteen people as respondents. The two organizations named were Sobeys Ontario Division and Sobeys Kanata #877. The personal respondents named were Andrew Johnson, Andrew Snook, Brian Lebree, Frazier (no family name provided), Joe Lockhart, John Leblanc, Linda Lavergne, Linda Roy, Micheline (no family name provided), Natasha Scorniaechi, Penny Fulford, Renee (no family name provided), Stacey Cape, Stephanie Switzerand and Steve Nakic.

2On March 28, 2011, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) against certain Respondents. The NOID stated that review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by these individuals. Consequently, it appeared that that the Application as against Brian Lebree, Joe Lockhart, Andrew Snook, Steve Nakic, Frazier (no family name provided), Penny Fulford, Renee (no family name provided), Micheline (no family name provided), Linda Roy and Linda Lavergne may be outside the HRTO’s jurisdiction.

3The applicant has made written submissions in response to the Notice.

4The applicant indicated that Linda Lavegrne refused the applicant modified work related to an injury and Linda Roy ignored information provided by the applicant’s physiotherapist regarding modified work requirements. The applicant also states that Steve Nakic questioned a medical report she provided.

5The applicant provided no further information regarding the other named respondents. Consequently, the applicant has not described any alleged act of discrimination by those respondents.

6It is plain and obvious, in my view, that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of Brian Lebree, Joe Lockhart, Andrew Snook, Frazier (no family name provided), Penny Fulford, Renee (no family name provided) and Micheline (no family name provided). Accordingly, the Application is dismissed against them and the style of cause amended to reflect the dismissal.

7On my review of the material before me, I am not convinced that it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the respondents Linda Roy, Linda Lavergne and Steve Nakic.

8Pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal will send the Application to Brian Lebree, Joe Lockhart, Andrew Snook, Frazier (no family name provided), Penny Fulford, Renee (no family name provided) and Micheline (no family name provided) and include this Interim Decision, the applicant’s submissions and all correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant on the jurisdiction issue. The Tribunal will also send a copy of the Application and the Notice of Application to the remaining Respondents, together with this Interim Decision, the applicant’s submissions and all correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant on the jurisdiction issue.

9This decision to continue to deal with the Application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the Application, nor an indication that the personal respondents should continue to be named as parties.

10I am not seized.