Koskowsky v. Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women, 2012 HRTO 2050

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Camille Koskowsky Applicant

-and-

Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 26, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2050 Indexed as: Koskowsky v. Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Camille Koskowsky, Applicant Self-represented

Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women, Respondent Claudia Scherman, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on June 1, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, sex, family status, and association with a person identified with a Code ground.

2The respondent filed a Response on July 16, 2012, denying the allegations of discrimination.

3On October 5, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. The applicant submits that a Tribunal inquiry is necessary in order to collect information to corroborate the Application and to ensure that respondent management does not pressure potential witnesses.

4On October 18, 2012, the respondent filed a Response to a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. The respondent indicates that there is no evidence that the organization will place pressure on any employee and that the organization intends to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure regarding disclosure of witness statements in the ordinary course of the Tribunal’s process.

DECISION

5The Tribunal’s authority to order an inquiry in certain circumstances is derived from s. 44 of the Code:

44 (1) At the request of a party to an application under this Part, the Tribunal may appoint a person to conduct an inquiry under this section if the Tribunal is satisfied that,

(a) an inquiry is required in order to obtain evidence;

(b) the evidence obtained my assist in achieving a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application; and

(c) it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances.

6In her Request, the applicant states that the purpose of the inquiry would be gather witness evidence early before any pressure by the respondent is placed on potential witnesses.

7I do not accept the applicant’s position that a Tribunal inquiry is necessary in the circumstances of this case. The applicant has provided no evidence in support of her claims that evidence may be lost or tainted by duress. Further, the Tribunal has stated that a Tribunal inquiry is not to be “a substitute for the usual production process contemplated by the Rules”: Miraglia v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 1031.

8The applicant’s Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is denied.

9I am not seized of this matter.