HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sadiya Noor
Applicant
-and-
Midyanta Community Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Noor v. Midyanta Community Services
DECISION AND ANALYSIS
Request to dismiss against the SIAO
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address (1) Somali Immigrant Aid Organization’s request to have the Application dismissed against it; and (2) the applicant’s Request to amend her Application to include a further series of incidents that occurred subsequent to the filing of her Reply.
2The applicant filed this Application on May 9, 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, sex and sexual solicitation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10, as amended (the “Code”). Her Application named two organizational respondents – her employer, Midyanta Community Services (“Midyanta”), and Somali Immigrant Aid Organization (which she incorrectly identifies as Somali Immigrant Aid of Ontario) (“SIAO”).
3In her Application, the applicant indicates that her employer is Midyanta. The only reference to the SIAO in her lengthy recital of allegations in her Application is that Mahad Yusuf, the Executive Director at Midyanta, held a meeting with her at his office at the SIAO sometime in 2008 in order “to mend fences.”
4It would appear to be common ground between the parties that Mr. Yusuf is the Executive Director of both the SIAO and Midyanta. In its Response, the SIAO, states that the applicant is not employed by the SIAO, that she has not done any work for the SIAO, and that Mr. Yusuf has never had any dealings with the applicant in his capacity as Executive Director of the SIAO. It asks that the Application be dismissed against it as there are no allegations against the SIAO. This is supported by Midyanta in its Response.
5In her Reply, the applicant states that she named the SIAO because unnamed staff members there have been complaining about her to her parents and relatives. She further submits that Mr. Yusuf’s family and clan is heavily involved in the SIAO, that Mr. Yusuf is working to merge the two organizations, that Midyanta sometimes holds meetings at the SIAO, and that she attended at the SIAO offices in 2008 to organize an event in July 2008.
6With the exception of the allegation concerning staff making complaints about her, none of the applicant’s submissions suggests that the SIAO engaged in discriminatory conduct towards her. With respect to the allegation concerning staff at the SIAO speaking to her parents, there is no suggestion that these people were engaged in this activity in their capacity as employees or agents of the SIAO.
7Moreover, in the absence of employment relationship and/or a service relationship between these individuals and the applicant, no social area of the Code is engaged. The Code does not prohibit discrimination in all facets of life, but only with respect to proscribed social areas such as employment or occupancy of accommodation.
8Rule 1.7(b) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may add or remove a party. In the absence of an allegation of discrimination and/or a social area, the Tribunal is without jurisdiction to proceed against the SIAO. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as against it.
Amendment
9Following the delivery of her Reply, the applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add recent allegations to her Application. These include a further formal complaint to the Board of Directors of Midyanta and the subsequent decision of the Board to put her on a leave of absence with pay while they investigate her allegations.
10Midyanta has indicated that it is not opposed to the proposed amendment so long as it is afforded the opportunity to file an amended Response.
11In light of the early stage at which the Request to amend was made, as well as the respondent’s consent, it would be appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request. Accordingly, this Application is amended to include the allegations contained in sections 3 and 4 of the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings. The respondent can file an amended Response within three weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.
ORDER
12In summary, I have made the following orders:
a. The Application against the Somali Immigrant Aid Organization is dismissed, the organization removed as a party, and the style of cause amended accordingly;
b. The applicant’s Request to amend her Application is granted to include the allegations contained in sections 3 and 4 of her Request for an Order During Proceedings; and
c. The respondent may file an amended Response within three weeks of the date of this Interim Decision to address the further amendments.
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of February, 2012.
”signed by”__________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair