McKenzie v. Ontario (Minister of Education), 2012 HRTO 1081

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Margaret McKenzie

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Education, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, and Ontario Teacher’s Federation

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: May 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1081

Indexed as: McKenzie v. Ontario (Minister of Education)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Margaret McKenzie, Applicant

Robert G. Keel, Counsel

Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board

Elizabeth M. Brown, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application raises the same issues as 81 other applications filed with the Tribunal, namely whether the survivorship benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan discriminate against the applicant on the basis of sex and marital status contrary to sections 1, 5(1), and 9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

3In regards to the other 81 applications, the respondent, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board ("Board"), has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") seeking their early dismissal pursuant to section 34(1) of the Code. The Board states that the applications were filed outside the limitation period.

4In an Interim Decision, the Tribunal held that one of the 81 applications, (file number 2011-08892-I, Ontario Teachers Survivor Benefit Group on behalf of Matthew O’Flanagan), would proceed as a lead case on the issue of delay. The Tribunal held that the remaining 80 Applications would be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal’s determination of the Board’s RFOP.

5Along with this Application, the applicant has filed an RFOP asking that this Application also be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal’s determination of the delay issue in the O’Flanagan matter.

6The Board has filed a Response to the RFOP. It does not object to this Application also being held in abeyance, but it wishes to reserve the right to file a Response to the Application and to seek its early dismissal because of delay.

7The remaining respondents have not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure has elapsed.

DECISION

8The Application will be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal’s determination of the delay issue in the O’Flanagan matter.

9The respondents need not file a Response until they are directed to do so by the Tribunal.