HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anne Helsby-Scouten Applicant
-and-
City of Kingston - Community and Family Services, Katie Clarke, Sharon Smith and Heather Mitchell Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Helsby-Scouten v. Kingston (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Anne Helsby-Scouten, Applicant
Self-represented
City of Kingston - Community and Family Services, Katie Clarke, Sharon Smith and Heather Mitchell, Respondents
Susan Nicholson, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have not yet filed a Form 2, Response to the Application.
2On August 26, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Registrar’s Letter which deferred the Application pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application.
3On February 2, 2015, the applicant filed a Request to reactivate and amend the Application.
4On March 27, 2015, the respondents filed a Form 11, response to the applicant’s Request, in which they oppose the amending of the Application because the amendment fails to establish a breach of the Code.
Reactivation
5Having reviewed the matter, it is clear that the other proceeding has concluded and that the request to reactivate the Application is timely. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.
Request to amend
6Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
7I have considered this matter and I find that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request to amend. The amendment of the Application is brought in a timely manner, will not delay the proceedings or prejudice the respondents since they have not yet filed a Response. However, allowing the amendment of the Application is not a final determination with respect to whether allegations in the amendments constitute a breach of the Code.
Respondents’ Request for Summary Hearing
8The respondents have requested that a summary hearing be held in this matter, and rely on, amongst other things, the fact that the parties settled a grievance with respect to a written warning which was imposed on the applicant. The respondents also rely on s. 45.1 of the Code. However, having reviewed this matter, it is not apparent to me that that the grievance filed by the applicant addressed all of the issues addressed in the Application. Therefore, I find that it is premature at this time for the Tribunal to consider the issues raised in the Request for summary hearing, especially in light of the fact that the respondents have not filed a fulsome Response.
Order
9The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The Application is reactivated;
b. The Request to amend the Application is granted; and
c. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents must file a Form 2 Response which fully addresses all of the allegations in the amended Application.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of June, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair