Jamie Wilson v. City of Toronto Fire Services and Ivica Injic, 2014 HRTO 1085

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jamie Wilson

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto Fire Services and Ivica Injic

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 24, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1085 Indexed as: Wilson v. City of Toronto Fire Services

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on May 15, 2014.

2In her Application the applicant alleges that she has experienced systemic gender discrimination and hostile work environment in some of the fire stations she has worked. The respondent City of Toronto Fire Services (“City”) is the applicant’s employer. The individual respondent is an employee of the City. The applicant raises a number of issues going back many years, some of which may be out of time. The applicant also alleges that she has been harassed by the individual respondent and other employees of the respondent. The applicant alleges that she has been assaulted by the individual respondent. She asserts the individual respondent had been charged with three counts of assault but the charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

3The respondent City has sought an extension of time to November 30, 2014 for both respondents to file their Responses to the Application. The individual respondent consents to the City’s request.

4The respondent City argues that because of the nature and extent of the allegations made by the applicant, it chose to retain an outside investigator in November 2013. This investigation process is ongoing but has been delayed by a number of factors, some of which may be outside of the City’s control. The applicant only agrees to a one-month extension.

5The Tribunal is required to process applications before it in a fair, just and expeditious manner. As the applicant points out, the respondent City has had almost 12 months to investigate the applicant’s claims and indeed began its investigation last August. While understandable given the gravity of the allegations made by the applicant, the processing of this Application cannot be subject to a lengthy delay pending the conclusion of an internal investigation. The respondents are directed to deliver and file their Responses to the Application before September 3, 2014.

6I appreciate however that the respondent City in particular may be constrained in making its Response at this stage and the report of the external investigator may be helpful to all parties and may resolve some or all of the issues in dispute. Accordingly, the respondent City, as well as the individual respondent, may file amended Responses within 21 days of the release of the investigator’s report. It may be most practical for the applicant to delay filing her Reply, if any, until after the release of the investigation report and amended Responses, if any, are filed. Given the extension that has been granted, it is very likely that the investigation report will be available to the parties before the next stage in the Tribunal process.

Orders

7The respondents will deliver and file their Responses (Form 2) before September 3, 2014. The respondents may file amended Responses within 21 days of their receipt of the internal investigation report.

8I am not seized