HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cyndy Hunter
Applicant
-and-
Farlake Dairy Ltd. and Hubertus Vermeer
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Dan Hunter
Applicant
-and-
Farlake Dairy Ltd. and Hubertus Vermeer
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Hunter v. Farlake Dairy
APPEARANCES
Cyndy Hunter and Dan Hunter, Applicants ) Self-represented
Farlake Dairy Ltd. and Hubertus Vermeer, ) Jennifer Quick, Counsel Respondents )
1The applicants filed these two Applications on October 4, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment, housing and contracts on the basis of citizenship, as well as reprisals, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2Cyndy and Dan Hunter are spouses. In or around 2002, they entered into a contract with Farlake Dairy Ltd. (“Farlake”) to run a dairy operation owned by Farlake in the St. Mary’s area. Hubertus Vermeer, the individual respondent, is the principal of Farlake, and the person with whom they dealt. As part of this contract, they and their children lived in the house on the property where the dairy operation was located until April 2008.
3The applicant, Cyndy Hunter, filed a previous Application against the respondent Hubertus Vermeer, which was dismissed by Decision dated March 26, 2010 (2010 HRTO 669). Her previous Application addressed the same subject matter as her current Application, save that her current Application also contains allegations of reprisal.
4Dan Hunter is the spouse of Cyndy Hunter. His Application contains identical allegations to those found in his wife’s Application. Essentially, they allege that they were subject to discrimination on the basis of their “citizenship” (i.e. not being Dutch) for the period they ran the dairy operation, and that when the contract was terminated, they lost both their livelihood and their home.
5In addition, they allege that the individual respondent threatened them in November 2008 that he was going to commence a civil action for $350,000.00 after learning that Cyndy Hunter had filed the previous Application. They further allege that the organizational respondent commenced the civil suit against them in April 2010, just a few weeks after the release of the Decision of this Tribunal dismissing Ms. Hunter’s previous Application. They allege that both the threat of litigation and the civil suit amounts to reprisal.
6An oral hearing was held via teleconference to address the respondents’ request to dismiss these two Applications on the basis that (1) it would be contrary to s. 45.1 of the Code and/or an abuse of process to proceed with the allegations also contained in Ms. Hunter’s previous Application; and (2) that the pursuit of valid legal remedies does not constitute “reprisal” or “threat of reprisal” under the Code.
7For the reasons discussed below, I concur that these Applications must be dismissed in their entirety.