Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Kim Cloutier Holtz Applicant
- and -
Midwives of Sudbury, Audrey Janette Batacharya and Association of Ontario Midwives Benefits Trust Respondents
INTERIM Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 10, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 491 Indexed as: Cloutier Holtz v. Midwives of Sudbury
1The applicant filed an Application on October 9, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging the respondents, Midwives of Sudbury and Audrey Janette Batacharya (“MOS and the personal respondent”), discriminated against her with respect to contracts because of her sex.
2The MOS and the personal respondent filed a Response on January 13, 2010 denying the allegations. In their Response, these respondents identified the Association of Ontario Midwives Benefits Trust (“AOMBT”) as an additional respondent.
3The AOMBT filed a Response on February 25, 2010, and requested that it be removed as a respondent because neither the applicant nor the other respondents alleged that it discriminated against the applicant.
4Neither the applicant nor the other respondents filed submissions in response to the AOMBT’s request to be removed.
5By way of an earlier Interim Decision, Cloutier Holtz v. Midwives of Sudbury, 2010 HRTO 847, the Application was deferred pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the College of Midwives of Ontario (“CMO”).
6On February 15, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”). The applicant requests to reactivate the Application on the basis that CMO proceeding is completed. The applicant also requests to amend the Application to include the allegation of reprisal and specify additional remedies.
7The Request and accompanying documents were served on all of the respondents.
8On February 28, 2011, the AOMBT filed a response indicating that it consents to the applicant’s request to reactivate and amend her Application.
9On March 1, 2011, the MOS and the personal respondent filed a response indicating that, while they contest the CMO’s findings, they do not object to the applicant’s request to reactivate her Application. The MOS and the personal respondent do not object to the applicant’s request to amend the Application, provided that the amendments are allowed without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of amendments.
DECISION
10Since the CMO process is completed and the respondents have not contested the request to reactivate, there no longer appears to be any reason to continue to defer consideration of the Application. Accordingly, the Application is reactivated.
11As previously noted, the AOMBT requests that it be removed as a respondent because neither the applicant nor the other respondents alleged that it discriminated against the applicant. The AOMBT states that it paid the applicant parental leave benefits on December 31, 2009, including retroactive benefits. The AOMBT submits that it has played no role in the events alleged in the Application.
12In these circumstances, the Tribunal directs as follows:
The Application is reactivated;
The applicant’s request to amend her Application is granted. The amendments are allowed without any determination of the merits of the reprisal allegations or remedies sought;
Should the respondents wish to file an response to the amendments, the respondents are required to file their response with the Tribunal, copied to other parties, within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision;
Within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant and the MOS and the personal respondent are required to file with the Tribunal, copied to each other, written submissions with respect to the AOMBT’s request to be removed; and
Within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision, all parties are required to write to the Tribunal, copied to each other, indicating whether they are amenable to participate in mediation.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of March, 2011
”signed by”____________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair