HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mary Chapman
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by Ministry of Attorney General, Facilities Branch, Corporate Services Management Division
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Chapman v. Ontario (Attorney General)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mary Chapman, Applicant
Self-Represented
Ministry Of Attorney General, Facilities Management Branch, Corporate Services Management Division, Respondent
Paul Meier, Counsel
Association Of Management And Provessional Crown Employees Of Ontario, Intervenor
Nadine Blum, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on March 1, 2013 under s. 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 age, family status, gender identity and alleging reprisal.
2This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene filed by the applicant’s association, the Association of Management and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (the “association”).
3This Interim Decision also addresses the Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) filed by the respondent, requesting that this matter be dismissed pursuant to section 43.1 of the Code or alternatively that it be dismissed as an abuse of process.
4Finally, this Interim Decision addresses the question of the timeliness of allegations in this Application.
REQUEST TO INTERVENE
5In this Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent violated the Code when it declared her position surplus, and demoted her to lower level work.
6The association is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant’s workplace. The Tribunal, therefore, gave notice of the Application to the association.
7The applicant’s association filed grievances on behalf of several employees, including the applicant, regarding the respondent’s reorganization and subsequent declarations that certain employees’ positions, including that of the applicant, were surplus, and the subsequent employment-related consequences for those employees.
8On March 1, 2013, the applicant signed Minutes of Settlement in the matter of her above-noted grievance.
9The applicant alleges that she was “forced to sign and agree to a GSB mediation agreement”.
10The association seeks status as an intervenor in this Application on the basis that as the bargaining agent, it has an interest in “ensuring that the terms of the settlement agreement signed by the Complainant [sic] are respected” and it also indicates that it can “provide information surrounding the circumstances of the dispute and settlement”.
11The respondent supports the association’s Request to Intervene.
12The applicant has not made any submissions regarding the association’s Request to Intervene and the time period for doing so has now lapsed.
13The association seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The association has an interest in the outcome of the Application. The association’s Request to Intervene is granted.
REQUEST TO DISMISS
14Citing the above-noted signed Minutes of Settlement of the grievance, the respondent has filed an RFOP, seeking to have this Application dismissed pursuant to s. 43.1 of the Code, or alternatively to have this Application dismissed as an abuse of process.
15The applicant submits that the matter should not be dismissed on either of the two above-noted bases. She submits that the matter of the grievance was different from the matter of this Application and she further alleges that she did “not agree to the signing of the Offer”.
16The Registrar will schedule a Preliminary Hearing in this matter, at which time the parties will have the opportunity to address the Request that the Application be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code or as abuse of process.
DELAY
17Additionally, it appears that some of the allegations may be untimely. With respect to delay, section 34 (1) and (2) of the Code, read 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 apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
At the Preliminary hearing, the parties should also be prepared to address the question of whether the Application is, in whole or in part, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for this reason.
ORDER
18The Tribunal directs as follows:
The association is added to this Application as an intervenor;
The Registrar will schedule a Preliminary hearing in this matter, at which time the parties will address the question of whether this Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, or alternatively, whether it should be dismissed as an abuse of process, and the parties should also be prepared to address whether the Application is, in whole or in part, outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for reasons of delay, pursuant to s. 34 of the Code and;
The parties will file with the Tribunal and deliver to the other parties, copies of any documents, or cases they will seek to rely upon, and they will file with the Tribunal and deliver to the other parties, witness lists including a brief statement of each witness’s expected evidence, within 28 days of the Preliminary Hearing.
19I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of May, 2013.
“Signed By”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair