Gurski v. Fort Frances Power Corporation, 2013 HRTO 1056

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Lynn Gurski

Applicant

-and-

Fort Frances Power Corporation and Town of Fort Frances

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: June 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1056

Indexed as: Gurski v. Fort Frances Power Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sharon Gurski, Applicant

Holly Walbourne, Counsel

Fort Frances Power Corporation, Respondent

Sarah C. Crossley, Counsel

Town of Fort Frances, Respondent

Sarah C. Crossley, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal, poisoned environment and discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, age and gender identity.

REQUEST TO REMOVE TOWN

2One of the respondents, the Town of Fort Frances (“the Town”), has requested to be removed on the basis that it has no employment relationship with the applicant, and that the applicant was employed by the respondent, Fort Frances Power Corporation (“FFPC”). The Town states that the fact it is the sole shareholder of FFPC is not a reason for the Town to also to be a respondent.

3The other respondent, FFPC, states that it was incorporated as a private corporation, has its own board of directors and operates independently from the Town even though the Town is its sole shareholder. FFPC maintains that it employed the applicant, and terminated her employment. FFPC agrees that if the Tribunal finds any breach of the Code with respect to the applicant’s employment, then FFPC will take responsibility for any remedy ordered.

4The applicant opposes the Town’s request to be removed, claiming in her Response to a Request for an Order, amongst other things, that her “pay cheques were issued by the Town and that her benefits also came from the Town.”

5At this preliminary stage of the proceedings, when there has not yet been an opportunity to assess evidence with respect to the applicant’s submissions, particularly with respect to who paid the applicant, I am not satisfied that there is no employment relationship between the applicant and the Town. The Town’s request that it be removed as a respondent is denied without prejudice to its right to renew its request and tender evidence about its relationship with the applicant should mediation scheduled for later this month not resolve the Application.

6Also, should mediation not resolve the Application, the Town may amend its Response, which presently simply adopts and relies upon the Response of FFPA. Any amendment must be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the other parties within 14 days of the scheduled mediation.

SUMMARY OF ORDER

7The request to remove the Town is denied at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.

NEXT STEP

8The parties shall proceed to mediation scheduled for June 21, 2013, in Thunder Bay, and if mediation is not successful in resolving the Application, then the Town may file an amended Response on or before July 5, 2013.