Khatkur v. Peel District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1106

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ranjit Khatkur Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Scott Moreash and Stacy Wilson Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: June 5, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1106

Indexed as: Khatkur v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ranjit Khatkur, Applicant ) Richard Miller, Counsel

Peel District School Board, ) Roy Filion, Counsel

Scott Moreash and Stacy Wilson, )

Respondents )

1In this Application, I issued an Interim Decision on April 17, 2012, providing direction on bifurcation of the hearing as well as production and disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (2012 HRTO 772). In that decision, I also addressed an allegation that in September 2004, the applicant requested and was refused “exceptional case status” to enter the principal promotion process with the respondent Peel District School Board (the Board). I stated that “[a]s an allegation of discrimination in the promotion process that was not challenged as untimely, I am inclined to agree with the applicant that this event should form part of the first phase of the hearing. If no objection is received from the respondents, the Tribunal will hear evidence about this allegation in the first phase” (para. 11).

2In the respondents’ letter of April 30, 2012, they object to the inclusion of evidence about this allegation in the first part of the hearing. Their objection appears to be based, first, on the contention that this allegation does not amount to a claim of discrimination in itself and second, to the extent it may be evidence the applicant seeks to rely on it establish her other claims of discrimination, its relevance is not established. The Board’s submissions also address the timeliness of this allegation and argue that this event is not part of a series of incidents within the meaning of section 34(2)(b) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

3The applicant responded to the Board’s submission on May 24, 2012.

4Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the prior submissions and decisions in this matter, I confirm that evidence about the refusal of “exceptional case status” will be heard during the first part of the hearing. It is an allegation that the applicant’s race and association with others identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination were factors in the decision not to grant the applicant’s request. As such, it falls within the category of issues that I decided would be heard in the first part of the hearing, as described in paragraph 47 of my decision of March 6, 2012 (2012 HRTO 472).

5No timeliness objection was made to this allegation earlier (see 2012 HRTO 472, para. 16) and having already considered the issue of delay in a previous decision I do not intend to re-visit it here.

6The evidence about this allegation will therefore be heard in the first part of the hearing, along with the other allegations about the failure of Principals and Board Superintendents to support the applicant’s candidacy to become a principal.

7Having decided that this evidence will be heard, it is unnecessary for me to opine on the relevance and cogency of such evidence to the applicant’s other claims of discrimination. This is a matter best left to the Vice-chair assigned to the hearing.

8I am not seized of this matter.