HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Allison Hahnfeld Applicant
-and-
Nacora Insurance Brokers, Kuehne & Nagel Ltd., Darryl Wolfe, David Schleifer, Natasha Sheilds, Andrea Joseph, Vini DiCarlo, Dana Pickles and Mirko Rodic Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: February 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 186 Indexed as: Hahnfeld v. Nacora Insurance Brokers
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Allison Hahnfeld, Applicant Self-represented
Nacora Insurance Brokers, Kuehne & Nagel Ltd., Darryl Wolfe, David Schleifer, Natasha Sheilds, Andrea Joseph, Vini DiCarlo, Dana Pickles and Mirko Rodic, Respondents Daniel Mayer, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, family status and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On August 1, 2014, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1161, which deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the complaint filed by the applicant with the Ministry of Labour pursuant to the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
3On December 23, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking the reactivation of the Application on the basis that an Employment Standards Officer issued a Decision on December 15, 2014.
4On January 23, 2015, the respondents filed a response to the applicant’s RFOP in which they consent to the applicant’s reactivation request. The respondents also filed their own RFOP seeking the removal of the personal respondents and the dismissal of the Application pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code.
5The applicant opposes the respondents’ RFOP.
Reactivation
6In light of the consent of the parties, the Application is reactivated and the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.
Preliminary Hearing
7The Tribunal shall convene a half-day preliminary hearing to address the respondents’ RFOP.
8Section 45.1 of the Code 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”.
9In 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 HRTO 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.
10The Tribunal will also address the respondents’ request to remove the personal respondents during the preliminary hearing.
11The parties may make submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed on this basis of s. 45.1 of the Code and the removal of the personal respondents. If the parties wish to rely on any further written submissions or case law with respect to these two issues they must deliver these to each other and file them with the HRTO no later than 35 days after the date of this Interim Decision.
12I am not seized with the Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of February, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair