HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jesse Lloyd
Applicant
-and-
Wellington Catholic District School Board
Respondent
interiM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: April 18, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 752
Indexed as: Lloyd v. Wellington Catholic District School Board
[1] The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on March 28, 2011 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed (“the March 2011 Application”). Within the body of his Application, he alleges that section 13, which deals with an “announced intention to discriminate”, applies in the circumstances of his case. The Application has not yet been sent to the respondent for Response.
[2] In [Lloyd v. Wellington Catholic District School Board, 2011 HRTO 238](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/238) (“the February 2011 Decision”), the Tribunal dismissed another application filed by the applicant dated June 8, 2009 (“the June 2009 Application”), in which he alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of creed. The June 2009 Application was dismissed for delay as it was filed outside the one year limitation period established by section 34(1) of the Code.
[3] At paras. 2 and 3 of the February 2011 Decision, the Tribunal stated:
The respondent is a publicly funded separate school board that operates 19 schools in Guelph and the rest of Wellington County. The applicant is a teacher who applied for a position with the respondent and claims discrimination on the basis of creed. In his Application to the Tribunal, he objects to the respondent’s practice of asking for a pastoral letter of reference from prospective teachers. He also objects to being asked (in the respondent’s online application form) whether he was a practicing Roman Catholic and whether he took the Roman Catholic Religion Education course at a faculty of education. […]
The applicant first applied for a position with the respondent in June 2006, and again in August 2006. He has made no applications for employment with the respondent since then. His Application to the Tribunal alleging discrimination was filed nearly three years later, and is dated June 8, 2009. In answer to the question on the Tribunal Application of when the last event happened, the applicant filled in June 8, 2009.
[4] In the June 2009 Application, the applicant alleges that he is a teacher who is looking for full-time permanent work. He states, “There is not one specific location and date for the discrimination against me. The discrimination is ongoing and involves an intention to discriminate” and references section 13 of the Code. He does not identify a specific date as being the date of the last event of alleged discrimination as required by question 7 of the Application form.
[5] In the body of the March 2011 Application, he alleges:
I am interested in working for the Wellington Catholic District School Board (WCDSB). The WCDSB has in place a policy whereby those who identify themselves as Catholic are hired preferentially over those who do not identify themselves as Catholic. In order to apply for a teaching position, one must state whether or not one is Catholic. The applicant must also submit a Pastoral Reference From to be completed by a Catholic Minister.
[6] It appears that the allegations in the March 2011 Application are essentially the same as the allegations in the June 2009 Application. Accordingly, it is appropriate to receive submissions from the applicant to explain why he should be able to proceed further with his March 2011 Application and why the principles of res judicata and/or issue estoppel and/or delay should not apply.
[7] The Tribunal has held, at [Snow v. Honda, 2007 HRTO 45](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2007/45) at paras. [36 to 43](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2007/45) that the criteria to be met for issue estoppel to apply are as follows:
The same questions are being decided in both proceedings;
The judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel is a final decision;
The parties, or their privies, are the same.
The Tribunal’s caselaw is found at www.canlii.org.
[8] The Code requires that applications be filed within a one-year limitation period as set out in section 34. The issue of applications being filed beyond the one-year limitation period was addressed in the February 2011 Decision.
[9] Accordingly, the Tribunal directs that, by no later than May 9, 2011, the applicant deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal written submissions addressing the issues identified in para. 6 above, including any caselaw material or other information not found in the March 2011 Application. If the applicant does not file written submissions, the Tribunal may dismiss his Application as being abandoned.
[10] The Tribunal will send a copy of the March 2011 Application to the respondent, but does not, at this point, require the respondent to file a Response to the Application. If the respondent chooses to respond to the applicant’s written submissions, as above, the respondent has until May 29, 2011 to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal any written submissions, including caselaw, addressing the issues identified in para. 6 above.
[11] The Tribunal will consider the parties’ submissions and may issue further case directions on these issues.
[12] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of April, 2011.
“signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair