Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, 2012 HRTO 1814

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Liane Aubin

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Carrie-Anne Collin

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Lindsay Rogers

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: September 21, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1814

Indexed as: Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre

Introduction

1These three Applications allege sexual harassment, discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment and all three applicants were employed by the respondent organization, the Sudbury Sexual Assault Centre (the "Centre"). The matter is proceeding to a hearing on October 15-17, 2012.

2On September 7, 2012, the Tribunal received a Request to Withdraw an Application from the applicant Carrie-Anne Collin ("Collin").

3On September 10, 2012, the Tribunal received a Response to the Request to Withdraw from the Centre. The Centre consented to the withdrawal provided that Collin waive her right to re-file the Application and/or raise any matter arising from the original complaint. The individual respondent, Morag Anderson, did not respond to the Request to Withdraw.

4In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1751, the Tribunal allowed the applicant to withdraw an application without conditions, commenting as follows (at para. 4):

The Tribunal appreciates the respondents' concerns about the time and resources they have devoted to responding to this Application. Nonetheless, I see little to be gained by an inquiry at this stage into whether the circumstances of this Application and the possible motivation for the applicant's decision to seek to withdraw the Application should lead to the sort of order sought by the respondents. If the applicant seeks to re-file the same allegations in another application, the respondents may raise their objection at that time and may request that the Tribunal refuse to consider a new application.

5In this case, the Centre has offered no support for its position that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application with conditions. If Collin seeks to re-file the same allegations in another application, the Centre may raise its objection at that time and may request that the Tribunal refuse to consider a new application.

6For these reasons, I am not prepared to grant the relief sought by the Centre. Collin's Request to Withdraw an Application is granted without terms.

7In reviewing the file, it appears that the remaining applicants have failed to comply with their obligations under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the party intends to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing. The remaining applicants are directed to immediately file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, and if they have not done so within seven days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the Applications may be dismissed as abandoned.