Griffith v. Knight, 2013 HRTO 1758

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rosalie Griffith

Applicant

-and-

Patrick Knight

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1758

Indexed as: Griffith v. Knight

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rosalie Griffith, Applicant

Self-represented

Patrick Knight, Respondent

Caroline V. Jones, Counsel

1This Application was filed on May 30, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of sex and reprisal.

2The Application was originally filed as against an organizational respondent, the Toronto District School Board (“TDSB”), and the current individual respondent, Patrick Knight. The TDSB and the individual respondent filed Responses denying the allegations.

3The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2245 pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

4On December 20, 2012, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the Application as against the organizational respondent because the applicant and the TDSB had reached a settlement. On January 23, 2013, the Tribunal Registrar issued a letter withdrawing the Application as against the TDSB noting that neither respondent had responded to the applicant’s withdrawal request. As such, the Application was maintained as against only the individual respondent.

5On March 6, 2013, the applicant filed a request to reactivate the Application; however, the applicant failed to attach the requisite documentation confirming the conclusion of the grievance proceeding upon which the deferral was based.

6The applicant resubmitted her request to reactivate on March 15, 2013 and attached a redacted copy of the Minutes of Settlement, dated December 6, 2012, confirming that the grievances were resolved. The Minutes of Settlement was redacted to block the financial terms of the settlement.

7On March 15, 2013, the individual respondent filed a request for production seeking copies of all grievances and an unredacted copy of the Minutes of Settlement. The individual respondent asserts that he is entitled to disclosure of the full Minutes of Settlement and all grievances for the purposes of advancing his request that the Application be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code as appropriately dealt with by the grievance proceedings.

8On March 19, 2013, the respondent also filed a response opposing the applicant’s request to reactivate on the basis that reactivation request was delayed. The respondent argues that the reactivation request was filed three months after the December 6, 2012 settlement and, therefore, delayed by over one month. The respondent submits that the applicant did not provide an explanation for her delay in the reactivation request and, therefore, the delay was not incurred in good faith.

9The applicant filed submissions on March 26, 2013 in reply asserting that her reactivation request is timely because, although she signed the settlement on December 6, 2012, the request to withdraw the Application as against the TDSB was made on December 20, 2012 and the distribution of the financial settlement compensation occurred on February 21, 2013. The applicant submits that she was under the impression that the settlement was concluded when the financial payment took place in February 2013 and on this basis believed the reactivation request was timely.

10The respondent argues that the Tribunal should not consider the applicant’s March 26th submissions because the Tribunal Rules do not provide for reply submissions to be filed after a Form 11 response to Form 10 request.

DECISION

11Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that a request to reactivate a deferred application must be made no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

12The Tribunal has discretion to vary time limits set out in its Rules “to facilitate an accessible process and to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the matter before it” (Rule 1.1 and 1.7). In Marc-Ali v. Graham, 2012 HRTO 502, the Tribunal discussed on what basis the time limit for reactivating a deferred Application might be extended:

The principles to apply in extending time limits under the Rules should be similar to the principles established under section 34 of the Code: has the delay in meeting the time limits in the Rules been incurred in good faith (in Baker, this requirement was worded slightly differently, but I see no significant difference between “good faith” and “a good reason”); and will any substantial prejudice to the respondents result from extending the time limit. The length of the delay is a factor in assessing the potential prejudice to the respondents. In addition, the Tribunal should be mindful of Rule 1.1 which sets out the need to facilitate an accessible process and to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of an application.

13As noted above, the Tribunal has the discretion to lengthen time limits provided for in the Rules. Given the various steps following the settlement and the time involved in seeking the Tribunal’s confirmation of the withdrawal of the Application as against the TDSB, which occurred on January 23, 2013, I find that there is a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing this reactivation request. I note the delay was not extreme and there is no evidence of prejudice to the respondent.

14In the circumstances of this case, I find that there is good reason to extend the time limit to reactivate the Application. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is granted.

15As the parties have noted in their recent correspondence to the Tribunal, there are various outstanding preliminary issues, including the respondent’s request for disclosure and the request to dismiss pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, as well as a potential issue of delay. The Tribunal will schedule a one hour case management conference call to hear the parties’ submissions regarding appropriate next steps.

16I am not seized.