Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Sonia Baker Applicant
-and-
Kingston General Hospital, Pam Devine and Bill Hunter Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: May 3, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 860 Indexed as: Baker v. Kingston General Hospital
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on October 8, 2008. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request For Order During Proceeding that the Ontario Nurses' Association be removed as a party and provide directions regarding the next steps in this matter.
2On May 5, 2010, the respondent Hospital filed a Response, which among other things, listed Ontario Nurses' Association ("ONA") as a respondent. On March 8, 2011, ONA filed a Request For Order During Proceeding seeking that it be removed as a party. On April 21, 2011, the other respondents filed a Response to a Request for an Order, which indicated that ONA was mistakenly named as a party and that they do not object to its removal. The applicant agrees to the removal of ONA.
3Having regard to the foregoing, ONA is removed as a party. ONA will continue to receive notice of the proceeding as an affected person unless ONA advises the Tribunal that it no longer wishes to receive notice by May 16, 2011.
4As a result of the foregoing, the parties are not required to respond to the Tribunal's letter of March 8, 2011, which addressed an issue raised in ONA's Response.
Next Steps
5In the Response, the respondents suggest the applicant has not filed a substantive response to the Tribunal's direction to provide a two (2) page submission regarding the conduct she alleges is in breach of the Code (as required by paragraph 10 of the Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 122 and paragraph 5 of the Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 539).
6The applicant provided the submission on March 24, 2010, but it appears that it was not delivered to the respondents with the Application. The Registrar will deliver a copy of the submission to the respondents immediately.
7The respondents may file an amended Response by May 24, 2011.
8If the respondents file an amended Response and the applicant intends to prove a version of the facts different from those set out in the amended Response, the applicant must file, in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules, by May 31, 2011, a Reply setting out the different version. In her Reply, the applicant may also reply to any other new matter raised in the amended Response.
9All parties have checked the appropriate box on the Tribunal's forms signifying their agreement to mediation, although the applicant has provided some additional comments that could be interpreted otherwise. The Application will be scheduled for mediation unless the applicant advises the Tribunal in writing by May 10, 2011, that she does not wish mediation.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of May, 2011.
"Signed by"
_________________________________
Kathleen Martin Vice-chair