HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rhonda Fleming
Applicant
-and-
Lanark Welfare Society and The Incorporation of the Montague Township
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Fleming v. Lanark Welfare Society
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 because of disability and reprisal. The applicant is the Executive Director of the corporate respondent.
2This Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy in which she seeks that the Board of Directors not attend the workplace until the Application is heard.
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM REMEDY
3The conditions for awarding an interim remedy are set out in Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure:
The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:
a) the Application appears to have merit;
b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and
c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
4In T.A. v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal stated that, since the Code is remedial legislation, the fundamental consideration in determining whether to award an interim remedy is “whether an interim remedy is necessary to facilitate and ensure the Tribunal is able to award a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, should a violation of the Code be found.”
5Normally, the Tribunal’s power to order respondents to do, or refrain from doing something, is contingent upon a finding that they have violated the Code. Interim remedies are extraordinary in that they constitute an order to do, or refrain from doing something, in the absence of a finding that the Code has been violated. For this reason, an applicant bears a “significant onus” in establishing that the Tribunal should award an interim remedy: T.A., above.
6Having considered this matter, I find that it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to grant the Interim Remedy sought by the applicant. First, I note that this Tribunal has never ordered even after a full hearing on the merits, that a Board of Directors, who ultimately has responsibility with respect to an organization not to be able to enter the premises for which it is responsible. Secondly, I have some concerns with respect to the merits of the Application and whether or not the applicant will be able to establish a breach of her rights under the Code, and even as to whether the complaints raised by the applicant fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In the Application and Request for Interim Remedy, the applicant makes general allegations of unfairness which are not particularized and do not appear to be linked to the Code. In these circumstances, I decline to order the Interim Remedy.
Next steps
7Having reviewed the Application there are concerns that the Application may not be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. As such, the applicant is directed to file submissions outlining the events that she relies on in support of her assertion that her Code rights have been infringed. The applicant must describe in detail what is alleged to have occurred and/or said, by whom and when these events occurred. These submissions must be received within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
8If after the applicant’s submissions are received the Tribunal is of the view that it is plain and obvious that the Application does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, then it may be dismissed on that basis.
9In the circumstances, the respondent is not required to file a Response until further direction from the Tribunal.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of October, 2015.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair