Sheikh v. Summitt Energy Inc., 2014 HRTO 557

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Fatima Sheikh Applicant

-and-

Summitt Energy Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: April 22, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 557 Indexed as: Sheikh v. Summitt Energy Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Fatima Sheikh, Applicant Catherine Harbridge, Representative

Summitt Energy Inc., Respondent Anne-Marie Naccarato, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal, poisoned environment and discrimination with respect to employment because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with the applicant's request to amend her Application. It also provides directions with respect to her most recent request for an adjournment of the two-day-long hearing scheduled for May 26-27, 2014, and directions to the parties with respect to filing documents.

Request to amend

2The applicant seeks to amend her Application by, amongst other things, deleting paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33 and 42, mainly because she wishes to withdraw her allegations of discrimination with respect to the termination of her employment as reprisal, and instead focus on what she has described as harassment and a poisoned environment while she was working. The respondent consents to the deletions, and this aspect of the request to amend is accordingly granted.

3The applicant also seeks to amend her Application by changing the language of paragraphs 28 and 38 so that paragraph 28 might contain additional language which appears to state, in summary, that her "culture" contributed to her feeling that any complaints to the respondent, her employer, about alleged language in the workplace would be unlikely to be believed because she is a woman, and that "her employer left her feeling like she was a trouble maker for stating the truth of the incident." The respondent objects, but I grant the request to add the proposed language to paragraph 28 because it merely explains the first sentence of the paragraph that already existed, and adds clarity to what exactly her feelings were that she originally claimed were hurt. In granting this amendment to paragraph 28, I am not making any finding of discrimination nor am I agreeing to the applicant's claims about her feelings. Evidence will be required from the applicant about her feelings only if the hearing progresses to the point where her feelings are relevant to any remedy.

4The proposed change to paragraph 38 is to change the sentence: "When the Applicant chose to exercise her rights to be free of discrimination and sought protection from her employer she was treated poorly with the end result of a reprisal of termination," and proposes instead: "When the Applicant chose to exercise her rights to be free of discrimination and sought protection from her employer she was treated poorly, and felt unsupported by her employer and feared termination." I also grant this proposed amendment, although I caution the parties again that I am not making any finding with respect to allegations in doing so, and evidence will be required from the applicant about her feelings only if the hearing progresses to the point where her feelings are relevant to any remedy.

5Any argument by the respondent that certain paragraphs of the Application should be struck as a result of the amendments now allowed shall be dealt with at the commencement of the hearing; however, the parties must immediately file and exchange their documents as required by Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, including summaries of what their witnesses will say, with the exception that no evidence will be initially required with respect to any culture that affects the applicant's feelings as described in paragraph 28. If need be, additional hearing dates will be scheduled to hear evidence with respect to such a culture. The parties should also remember that the amendments to the Application eliminate the need to hear evidence with respect to the original allegation that the termination of employment was reprisal.

adjournment request

6The applicant previously requested an adjournment because her recently retained representative was unavailable for a third day of hearing originally scheduled for May 28, 2014, and because her recently retained representative would "like time to further review the file". That adjournment request was denied, although the May 28, 2014 date was cancelled.

7The present request to adjourn was made by email sent April 17, 2014, and the reason for it is because the applicant has to leave the country on May 1, 2014, to attend her sick mother in Pakistan, and her return has yet to be determined.

ORDER

8The applicant's request to amend is granted.

direction

9The respondent must immediately indicate whether it consents to the adjournment.