HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Orlette Richards
Applicant
-and-
Bridgepoint Health
Respondent
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Richards v. Bridgepoint Health
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Orlette Richards, Applicant
Self-represented
Bridgepoint Health, Respondent
Patty Murray, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to re-activate her deferred Application as well as the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The applicant filed her Application on April 20, 2010. She alleges, in part, that she was denied emergency time off which was then used to terminate her employment. The applicant asserts that in spite of very good employment evaluations, the denial of fair treatment was based on one or more of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The applicant asserts that she was discriminated against in her employment because of her race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and family status.
3The applicant also filed two grievances which raised concerns with respect to alleged discrimination, harassment and unfair termination of the applicant’s employment. The Application was deferred pending the conclusion of both grievances by Interim Decision dated August 4, 2010 (2010 HRTO 1634).
4On November 2, 2015, the arbitrator released her decision dismissing both grievances and provided brief reasons. The arbitrator indicated that more comprehensive reasons for the discharge grievance would follow. In email correspondence from the arbitrator dated September 30, 2015 to the parties, the arbitrator indicated that she expected to provide reasons on the discharge grievance no later than February 29, 2016. A copy of this email correspondence was provided to the Tribunal.
5By Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) dated December 1, 2015, the applicant requested that the Tribunal re-activate her Application as the arbitrator has issued a decision. The respondent submits the Application should not be reactivated until the comprehensive reasons for the dismissal of the applicant’s discharge grievance are released. The respondent submits further that if the Application is reactivated, it should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code.
6Since the arbitrator has now issued her decision, I grant the applicant’s request to re-activate her Application. The Application was filed many years ago and it is important that it not be delayed any longer.
7There is an issue in this case as to whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, which reads as follows: “The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application”. As such, I direct that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine this issue. In light of the anticipated date for the release of the arbitrator’s more comprehensive reasons, those reasons should be available for the preliminary hearing.
order
8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is granted; and,
b. The respondent’s request for a preliminary hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code is granted.
Next Steps AND DIRECTIONS
9The Registrar will schedule a half day hearing by conference call. The parties will receive a notice of hearing, setting out the time, date and telephone numbers for the preliminary hearing. Although scheduled for a half day, not all preliminary hearings require a half day to complete. It will be up to the Vice-chair to determine the length of the hearing and how the hearing is conducted.
10The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal copies of any further documents, witness lists or cases they intend to rely upon two weeks prior to the date of the preliminary hearing. If any party intends to call witnesses, a summary of the witness’ intended evidence must also be filed and delivered.
11In preparing their submissions, the parties may wish to consider the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 and Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19, as well as previous cases in which the Tribunal has considered the application of s. 45.1, including Claybourn v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1298 and the cases cited in that decision. All decisions of the Tribunal can be accessed free of charge on the website of the Canadian Legal Information Institute at: www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/index.html.
Dated at Toronto, this 30^th^ day of December, 2015.
”Signed By”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair