Karen Linder v. Lambton Kent District School Board, 2015 HRTO 658

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Linder

Applicant

-and-

Lambton Kent District School Board

Respondent

-and-

Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: May 20, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 658 Indexed as: Linder v. Lambton Kent District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karen Linder, Applicant Self-represented

Lambton Kent District School Board, Respondent John-Paul Alexandrowicz, Counsel

Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, Affected Party Howard Goldblatt, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent has not yet responded to the Application.

2The respondent has requested the early dismissal of this Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of this Application was dealt with in one or more grievances in which the issues raised in this Application were raised and resolved by a settlement between the respondent and the affected party.

3The applicant opposes the request arguing that she received no benefit from the settlement between the affected party and the respondent.

4The affected party took no position on this issue.

5The request is denied. The allegation in the Application is essentially that the applicant was denied placement on the Long Term Occasional list of supply teachers because of her age. The respondent denies the allegation.

6There is no issue that the precise issue raised in this Application was the subject of one or more Party grievances filed by the affected party. As I understand it a Party grievance might also be referred to as a group grievance. The applicant is identified in one or more of the several grievances filed on behalf of a number of occasional teachers including the applicant by the affected party. There is no issue that the applicant’s complaints formed part of the subject matter of one or more of these grievances. There is also no dispute that these grievances were resolved by a settlement between the affected party and the respondent.

7The Tribunal has concluded that the principles in section 45.1 are applicable where the issues raised in an Application have been disposed of in a settlement of another proceeding. See Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 2008 HRTO 149. However, in this case the applicant asserts that she received no benefit pursuant to the settlement between the workplace parties. It appears that this was the case, although some of the other grievors may have received some benefit from the settlement. There is also no indication that the applicant expressly adopted the settlement between the workplace parties.

8In such circumstances the Tribunal has generally not dismissed the Application pursuant to section 45.1. See Jean v. Résidence St. Louis, 2011 HRTO 1800. I agree with and adopt the principles outlined in that Interim Decision and the case cited therein and see no reason to depart from them in the circumstances.

9The respondent’s request to dismiss is denied at this stage.

10The respondent is directed to deliver and file its Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized of this case.