HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mukesh Goel
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman, Carol Speers, Ian Adamson, Jim Grieve, Jan Coomber, Paul Jones, Susan Hiraishi, and Tony Pontes
Respondents
-and-
Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, District 19
Intervenor
A N D B E T W E E N:
Mukesh Goel
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Goel v. Peel District School Board
APPEARANCES
Mukesh Goel, Applicant ) Self Represented
Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman, ) Carol Speers, Ian Adamson, Jim Grieve, Jan ) Coomber, Paul Jones, Susan Hiraishi, and ) Tony Pontes, Respondents ) Roy Filion and Lauren ) Chang-McLean, Counsel
Ontario Secondary School Teachers ) Federation, District 19, Intervenor ) Andrea Wobick, Counsel
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”) on May 13, 2010 (the “2010 Application”). The applicant also has another Application before the Tribunal (TR-0729-09) that deals with a complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on November 2, 2005 that was pursued as an Application to the Tribunal pursuant to the transitional provisions of the Code in s.53(5) (the “2009 Application”).
2In the 2009 Application, the applicant named his former employer, the Peel District School Board (the “PDSB”), a former school principal, and a Superintendent of Human Resources as respondents. That Application alleges discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of colour, race, disability, place of origin, and reprisal. The date of last incident of discrimination is stated on the Commission complaint documents as September, 2005 or October 12, 2005, and then, finally, amended to October 17, 2005.
3A preliminary hearing was held over half a day to address preliminary issues and various requests for orders made by the parties concerning the two Applications. I heard submissions from the parties on the following issues:
(a) Removal of personal respondents as parties to the Applications;
(b) Dismissal of all or part of the 2010 Application for delay;
(c) Applicability of s. 45.1 to the reprisal allegations in the 2010 Application; and
(d) Consolidation of the two Applications.
4For the reasons that follow, the 2010 Application is dismissed. Given the dismissal of the 2010 Application, no ruling is required on the issue of the applicability of s.45.1 to the reprisal allegations contained therein, removal of the named personal respondents in that Application, or the question of consolidation of the two Applications.
5For the reasons that follow, the personal respondents are removed as parties to the 2009 Application, which will proceed to be scheduled for a hearing.
Delay
6Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:
- (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