HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sheri Jalava
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Jalava v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2This Interim Decision directs the applicant to clarify certain matters and deals with a request to remove individuals as respondents.
3The information provided by the applicant in the Application is extremely detailed and covers many issues, some of which are not things that this Tribunal has power to deal with. I note that since filing the Application, the applicant has retained counsel.
4In order to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, the applicant is directed to provide a summary of the Code-related issues in this case. The summary should explain what infringement of the applicant’s Code-related rights occurred and when it occurred.
5As noted by the respondent, it appears that many of the events described occurred more than one year before the Application was filed.
- (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
6The Application was filed on August 12, 2011. The one year period referred to in section 34(1)(a) was thus from August 12, 2012 to August 12, 2011.
7An applicant may be permitted to bring allegations about incidents that occurred more than one year before the Application was filed in two circumstances. The first is if the earlier incidents were part of a series of incidents, the last of which occurred within the one year period. When considering the meaning of a “series of incidents” the Tribunal generally needs to be satisfied that the incidents are a series of connected incidents. The second circumstance is if there is a good faith explanation for the delay and no substantial prejudice will result to the respondent.
8The summary provided by the applicant should address the delay issue. With respect to any incidents of alleged discrimination that occurred before August 2010, the applicant should explain the basis for why she is permitted to bring those allegations based on the criteria in section 34.
9The applicant is directed to provide this summary to the Tribunal and the respondents by January 18, 2013.
10If it wishes to respond to the summary, the respondent may respond by February 1, 2013.
Removal of personal respondents
11The Application named a number of individuals as respondents. The corporate respondent asked that the individuals be removed as respondents because all of the alleged incidents involving the individuals occurred in the normal course of the individual’s employments and because the corporate respondent accepts any liability that may be found.
12The Reply filed by the applicant indicates that she consents to the removal of the individuals as respondents.
13The request to remove the individuals as respondents is granted and the style of cause has been amended accordingly.
Dated at Toronto, this 27^th^ day of December, 2012.
”signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair