HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Basdaye Kissoon
Applicant
-and-
Victorian Order of Nurses and the College of Nurses of Ontario
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed As: Kissoon v. Victorian Order of Nurses
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”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment and vocational associations because of reprisal. The applicant alleges that she has been placed on compulsory sick leave and terminated by the respondent Victorian Order of Nurses (“VON”). The applicant also alleges that the VON provided false and misleading information to HRDC which resulted in her not receiving employment insurance benefits.
2The applicant also alleges that she was suspended from membership in the College of Nurses (“College”) and that this decision was discriminatory on the basis of reprisal. The applicant points to no other ground of discrimination other than reprisal. It appears that the applicant believes that the reprisal by the respondents was in relation to her attempts to report what she perceived to be patient abuse to the Human Rights Commission amongst other organizations.
3The College was identified in the Application and allegations are made against it and some of its officials. In the Form 1 related to her claim of discrimination in respect of her membership in a vocational association, the applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in having her membership terminated. The applicant claims that because of her reporting (or attempts to report) her allegations of patient abuse the FTP panel made a biased decision against her (that she was unfit to practice) and in favour of the VON.
4The applicant seeks a number of remedies including reinstatement of her certification of registration as a nurse fit to practice.
5The College was given notice of the Application as an “affected person” within the meaning of the Tribunal’s Rules. They subsequently filed a Form 5 (Request to Intervene), but in it they asked to be added as a responding party rather than an intervenor.
6In some of her submissions the applicant appears to agree that the College or at least some of its officials should be identified as respondents. The VON supports the College’s Request.
7In my view it is appropriate to add the College as a party respondent. As indicated the applicant has made allegations against the College and is seeking a remedy against the College. It has a clear interest in responding to this Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of March, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair