Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Katherine Oakley Applicant
-and-
Corporation of the County of Lanark and CUPE, Local 2976 Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: March 26, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 395 Indexed as: Oakley v. Lanark (County)
Appearances
Katherine Oakley, Applicant Paige Diebel, Representative
Corporation of the County of Lanark, Respondent Colin Youngman, Counsel
CUPE, Local 2976, Respondent Sue Lott, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed an Application on August 13, 2014, alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She has named both her employer (“Lanark”) and her union (“CUPE”) as respondents.
2The narrative describing incidents that happened spanned the period of March 18, 2008 until July 17, 2014. The Application was not clear with respect to what incidents were alleged to be discriminatory, but it appeared to the Tribunal that many were either out of time, or had been dealt with and dismissed by previous Tribunal decisions and in proceedings elsewhere. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on September 5, 2014, directing that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on one or more of the following bases: (1) that parts of the Application are either an abuse of process or have been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding; and/or (2) that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.
Summary Hearing
3The summary hearing took place on March 20, 2015 by teleconference. The applicant’s representative explained that most of the 12 paragraphs of the narrative describing “what happened” in the Application were meant to be context. The narrative describes the applicant’s shifts as a personal support worker in a long-term care facility operated by Lanark. It highlights Lanark’s alleged attempts to make the applicant’s tasks more difficult for her, Lanark’s alleged reluctance to accommodate the applicant’s disability, including its alleged reluctance to implement a settlement resulting from a previous Application to the Tribunal, and CUPE’s alleged inaction to help the applicant obtain accommodation from Lanark. She explained that only the last two paragraphs of the narrative were meant to contain allegations for the purposes of the Application, and she explained that both paragraphs contained allegations that were ongoing.
4The second last paragraph states as follows:
On July 23, 2013, the Applicant received a letter from Deborah Pidgeon, dated July 19, 2013, in which Pidgeon threatened to discipline the Applicant for signing a petition on the Attendance Awareness Policy. The petition specifically addressed Pidgeon’s contravention of this policy. Pidgeon was known for telling staff to call in when sick, but would subsequently discipline those employees who had called in for legitimate illness. When an employee had progressed to stage five, even for legitimate health reasons, they were terminated. Pidgeon inferred that the Applicant would meet a similar fate, and that she was walking on thin ice. The Respondent, CUPE, supported Lanark’s actions in this regard and when the Applicant went to CUPE after receiving the July 19 letter, CUPE did nothing, simply leaving the letter in the Applicant’s employee file.
5Also at the summary hearing, the applicant’s representative explained that the applicant’s allegations of CUPE violating the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/