Tammy Caron v. Lakeside Plastics Limited and Ken Siddal, 2013 HRTO 1528

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tammy Caron

Applicant

-and-

Lakeside Plastics Limited and Ken Siddal

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: September 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1528

Indexed as: Caron v. Lakeside Plastics Limited

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 discrimination with respect to employment] because of disability, marital status, association with a person identified by a ground under the Code. The applicant also alleges that she experienced reprisal or the threat of reprisal contrary to the Code.

Removal of Union Respondents

2A previous Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), dated June 14, 2013, directed that a summary hearing by teleconference would be held to determine whether the application should be dismissed in whole or in part as against the C.A.W. Local 195 and C.A.W. National Union (the “union respondents”).

3The CAD also indicated that the Tribunal would hear submissions on the issue of delay in the filing the Application as against the remaining two respondents during that hearing.

4The applicant has now indicated in writing that she consents to removing the union respondents as respondents in this Application.

5The C.A.W. Local 195 and C.A.W. National Union are removed as respondents and the style of cause amended accordingly.

Issues to be addressed at Teleconference Hearing

6The teleconference hearing will proceed. The parties should be prepared to address the issue of delay in filing the Application, as outlined in the CAD, dated June 14, 2013.

7The respondent also argues that s.45.1 of the Code applies. It argues that the substance of the Application was appropriately dealt with, in whole or in part, by the Board of Referees in their decision dated June 7, 2012. The respondent raises the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, which reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

8At the teleconference hearing, the Tribunal will hear submissions on the question of whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding has dealt with the substance of the matters before the Tribunal. The parties may wish to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, and the Tribunal’s decision in Gomez v. Sobeys Milton Retail Support Centre, 2011 HRTO 2297

ORDER

9The C.A.W. Local 195 and C.A.W. National Union are removed as respondents and the style of cause amended accordingly.