Angie Bruni v. Rod and Joe’s No Frills, 2012 HRTO 2154

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angie Bruni

Applicant

-and-

Rod and Joe’s No Frills

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: November 15, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2154 Indexed as: Bruni v. Rod and Joe’s No Frills

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Angie Bruni, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

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”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex, marital status and age. This Interim Decision addresses how the Application will proceed before the Tribunal.

2The applicant filed her Application on June 13, 2012. On July 13, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application to the applicant indicating that her Application did not explain how and why she believed she experienced discrimination contrary to the Code. The applicant was directed to provide further details as to how and why she believed the respondent discriminated against her.

3On August 2, 2012, the applicant provided further details to the Tribunal. However, while this information referred to a number of events that supposedly took place during the applicant’s employment with the respondent it did not specifically allege that the applicant was subject to discriminatory treatment contrary to the Code.

4As a consequence on September 14, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on the basis that it appeared that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it failed to identify any specific allegations of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The applicant was directed to provide written submissions responding to the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider her Application.

5On September 24, 2012, the applicant filed written submissions in which she alleged that while she was employed by the respondent she was subject to unwanted sexual advances as well as verbal sexual harassment. The applicant indicated that she subsequently resigned from her position with the respondent in January 2012.

DECISION

6At this stage of the proceedings (before the Application has been delivered to the respondent), the Tribunal will only dismiss an Application if it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside its jurisdiction: see for example, Morin c. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58. While I make no findings, it appears that the applicant’s allegations, if true, could amount to an infringement of the Code. Accordingly, it is not plain and obvious that this matter falls outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

NEXT STEPS

7The Application has not, as yet, been served on the respondent. However, it does appear from the materials the applicant has filed with the Tribunal that the applicant and the respondent entered into a settlement at the time the applicant resigned from her position with the respondent in January 2012. The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a copy of Minutes of Settlement dated January 19, 2012 that appear to be signed by the applicant, the applicant’s bargaining agent, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1000A, (the “Union”) and the respondent. The settlement states that the parties wish to “settle all matters related to the employee’s employment with the employer”. The Minutes of Settlement contain a number of specific settlement provisions.

8Importantly, the Minutes of Settlement also contain a provision that states that the applicant releases and forever discharges the respondent from any and all manners of actions, including claims under the Code, which may arise from her employment with the respondent. This raises the issue of whether it would be an abuse of process to allow the Application to proceed given the terms of the release contained in the January 19, 2012 Minutes of Settlement.

DIRECTION

9Section 43(2) of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application within its jurisdiction without affording the parties a chance to make oral submissions. Accordingly, the Registrar will schedule a two-hour teleconference to hear submissions from the applicant and the respondent and Union, if they wish, on the issue of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application given the nature of the release signed by the applicant.

10The Tribunal will provide copies of the Application and this Interim Decision to the respondent and the Union. The respondent is not required to file a Response at this time. If the respondent or the Union wish to participate at the teleconference (or by means of written submission) they must communicate this interest to the Tribunal and the other parties within fourteen days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11If any of the parties wish to rely on any written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) or facts not contained in the Application or the January 19, 2012 Minutes of Settlement, they must deliver such additional material to the other parties and file it with the Registrar no later than two weeks before the date of the conference call.

12I am not seized of this matter.