Kristina Law v. Michael Noonan, 2011 HRTO 1935

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kristina Law

Applicant

-and-

Michael Noonan

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: October 26, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1935

Indexed as: Law v. Noonan

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Michael, Respondent ) Self represented )

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed August 18, 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation or advances, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). Specifically, the applicant alleges being subjected to a course of sexually-oriented comments, solicitations and minor sexual assaults by her employer. The applicant's employment was terminated by the respondent in August 2010.

2The respondent filed a full Response on October 1, 2010, specifically denying the allegations contained in the Application. In the Response the respondent states among other things:

The Respondent and Mrs. Noonan treat all their staff with respect, dignity and in accordance with human rights standards"....The Applicant was terminated due to performance concerns and insubordination....

3On August 23, 2011, the respondent filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (the "Request") seeking "dismissal of claim". In his Request the respondent essentially reiterates his position as submitted in his Response denying the applicant's allegations. The respondent's Request states:

...There was not an abuse of the Human Rights Code and Kristina Law's case is purely for retribution with twisted facts or outright lies. As I will provide later, Kristina did not want to lose her job and became quite angered when she perceived it would happen...

4The applicant has not responded to the Request.

5This Interim Decision addresses the respondent's Request for dismissal of the Application.

ANALYSIS

6The Tribunal may dismiss an Application at an early stage in certain circumstances, such as where the subject matter of the Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or the applicant has signed a release covering the subject matter of the Application. The Tribunal may also direct a summary hearing, on its own motion or upon the request of a respondent, where an application does not appear to have any reasonable prospect of success.

7The circumstances of this Application do not support early dismissal or a direction for a summary hearing. Based on the evidence before me, the matters raised appear to be within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. There is a significant factual dispute and it cannot be said that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will succeed in establishing a violation of the Code.

ORDER

8The Request for Order during Proceedings is denied.

9The Application will be scheduled for a two day hearing on its merits.

10I am not seized of this matter.