Carneiro v. Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2014 HRTO 544

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sheila Carneiro

Applicant

-and-

Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Ernie Colosimo and Pervez Ditta

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: April 16, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 544

Indexed as: Carneiro v. Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

APPEARANCES

Sheila Caneiro, Applicant

Kenneth Hughes, Counsel

Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning and Ernie Colosimo, Respondent

Brenda Bowlby, Counsel

1This is an Application filed 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 sex, sexual solicitation or advances and reprisal.

2The Tribunal served the Application and the respondent college (the “College”) filed a Response on behalf of it and Ernie Colosimo, one of the individual respondents. In correspondence with the Tribunal, counsel for the College and Mr. Colosimo advised that Pervez Ditta is no longer employed by the College and that the College was not in a position to forward the Application to him. By letter dated February 7, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to, amongst other things, provide by February 27, 2014 a current, complete and accurate address for Mr. Ditta and to explain the steps taken to ensure that the address is current, complete and accurate.

3On February 24, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, in which she requested an extension of time to provide Mr. Ditta’s address and an order requiring the College to provide information it holds regarding Mr. Ditta including: the name of the financial institution where the College deposited his pay, the address on file for delivery of income tax forms, Mr. Ditta’s emergency contacts, Mr. Ditta’s employment references, Mr. Ditta’s personal cellular phone numbers and e-mail addresses and any professional affiliations or memberships of which the College is aware.

4The Tribunal granted the applicant’s request for an extension of time to March 24, 2014 in a letter dated February 26, 2014.

5The College and Mr. Colosimo filed a Response to a Request for an Order on March 7, 2014. These respondents stated that they did not oppose the applicant’s request for an extension of time. They submitted that the College is subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”), which precludes it from simply handing over to the applicant personal information about a former employee. The College therefore requests an order from the Tribunal in order to avoid any issue under FIPPA. The College stated that it has the following information regarding Mr. Ditta:

1. Name of financial institution
2. Address on record
3. References
4. Emergency Contact

The College submitted that it would consent to an order requiring it to provide these four pieces of information.

Decision

6In light of the College’s consent, the Tribunal orders as follows

1. Within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the College shall provide to the applicant the information described in paragraph 5(1)-(4), above.
2. Within 21 days of the date on which the applicant receives the information described in paragraph 5(1), above, the applicant shall provide to the Tribunal a current, complete and accurate address for the respondent Pervez Ditta and explain the steps taken to ensure that the address in current, complete and accurate, failing which the Tribunal may not deal with the Application as against Mr. Ditta, pursuant to Rule 6.6(a) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

7I am not seized