HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Terra
Applicant
-and-
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Colin Johnston
Indexed as: Terra v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board
APPEARANCES
Maria Terra, Applicant
Self-represented
Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Respondent
Dianne E. Jozefacki, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of age and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In a Case Assessment Direction, dated June 25, 2015, the Tribunal directed at the request of the respondent that the matter be scheduled for a summary hearing, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, in order to determine whether the Application has a reasonable prospect of success. The summary hearing took place on October 29, 2015 by way of teleconference.
3The applicant is a Vice-Principal with the respondent (“School Board”). She alleges that the School Board discriminated against her with respect to a job competition for one of five positions as a School Principal. The competition took place on February 20, 2014. There were eight candidates for the positions. The five successful candidates were all, according to the applicant, under the age of 50. Two of the successful candidates were male and the other three were female. The three unsuccessful candidates were all women over the age of 50 including the applicant who was 56 years old.
4The applicant has worked for the respondent School Board for over 27 years at both the elementary and High School level. She began her career as a teacher and has worked as a Vice- Principal for the last 10 years.
5The applicant points to the following evidence in support of her Application:
a. In 2011, the applicant’s former Principal refused to recommend her for the Principal Leadership program, which is prerequisite to becoming a Principal. Her former Principal told the applicant that she did not know her well enough to recommend her for the program. The same Principal, however recommended a male colleague for the program.
b. In 2013, the same former Principal agreed to provide the applicant with a reference letter but never followed through with her promise.
c. The applicant interviewed for a position as Principal for the first time in 2013 but was not a successful candidate. The other two unsuccessful candidates in that competition were also women over the age of 50.
d. In 2014, the applicant applied again for the position of Principal. In preparation for the February