Borba v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2011 HRTO 963

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carla Borba Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: May 19, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 963 Indexed as: Borba v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This Application was filed on January 26, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges that the applicant has experienced reprisal in the workplace. The Application identifies the applicant’s union, the Amalgamated Transit Union, as an affected party.

2By way of previous Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 781, the Tribunal decided that the Application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent a detailed statement indicating the specific Code ground(s), if any, that relate to her allegations of unfair treatment and reprisal.

3The applicant filed written submissions on May 4, 2011 indicating that her allegations of reprisal relate to the fact that she previously participated in an internal human rights proceeding and complained about harassment. The applicant alleges that the respondent retaliated by failing to investigate her concerns. The applicant references “accommodation benefits”, harassment and discipline because of her complaints. In her narrative, the applicant also alleges that the respondent refused to pay her sick benefits and subjected her to unfair discipline for complaining.

4The Tribunal will continue to process the Application and the respondent must file a Response. I find that the respondent has sufficient information at this time to file a Response to the Application. The applicant alleges she was subjected to reprisal and her allegations are set out in various points of her narrative and summarized in her May 4, 2011 submissions. Based on these submissions and the Application, it appears that the applicant’s allegations pertain to the fact that she made a complaint to the respondent’s (the employer) internal human rights unit regarding disparaging remarks and harassment. The applicant is alleging unfair treatment with respect to sick benefits and disciplinary reprisal.

5As a result of conflicting dates being given with respect to the respondent’s timeline for filing its Response (Form 2), the Tribunal directs as follows:

i) By June 13, 2011, the respondent must file its Response (Form 2)

ii) By June 13, 2011, the affected party may file a Request to Intervene (Form 5)

6I am not seized of this matter.