HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lorraine Griffiths
Applicant
-and-
York Catholic District School Board and Luisa Busato
Respondents
-and-
CUPE Local 2331
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Griffiths v. York Catholic District School Board
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”).
2The Application was delivered to the respondents who filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing. The respondents also ask that two people identified as personal respondents be removed as respondents. The respondents also assert that some of the allegations are not timely and that they should be dismissed.
3The applicant asked for an extension of time to file a Reply to the Response, which was granted. However, the applicant did not file a Reply.
4The applicant is a member of CUPE. The Application was delivered to CUPE which filed a Request to Intervene. The Request to Intervene has not been opposed by the other parties and it is granted.
5I have reviewed the documents filed by the parties and have concluded that at this time, a summary hearing is not appropriate and the respondent’s request for a summary hearing is denied at this time.
6Rule 19A.5 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure provides that the HRTO need not give reasons for a decision not to hold a summary hearing.
7The applicant names the principal of the school where the applicant is employed. This person was involved in all the matters relating to the allegations in the Application. Based on the information provided by the parties so far, I find that it is not appropriate to remove Luisa Busato as a personal respondent at this time. This question can be reviewed at a later stage in the processing of this Application.
8The applicant also mentioned Patricia Patterson in the Application. Ms. Patterson is identified as the Director of Education. The respondents note that the applicant appears to have intended to identify Ms. Patterson as a contact person for the School Board and not as a personal respondent to the Application. I agree that this appears to be the case and find that Ms. Patterson should not have been identified as a personal respondent. The style of cause will be changed accordingly.
9Section 34 of the Code provides as follows:
- (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
10The allegations in the Application include an allegation that a co-worker used the “N word” in reference to the applicant on one occasion in 2012. The respondents assert that this incident was investigated and that nothing further was heard about it from the applicant. This alleged incident occurred more than 1 year before the Application was filed on January 30, 2015. It does not appear to be related to the other allegations in the Application. The applicant has not provided an explanation for the delay. For these reasons, the allegations regarding alleged racist comments in 2012 is dismissed for delay.
11The applicant has agreed to try mediation at the Tribunal. The respondents have not agreed to try mediation, asking that the Tribunal deal with the issues raised in the Response.
12The respondents are directed to advise within 14 days if they are prepared to try mediation. If not, the Tribunal will schedule a 1 day hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of July, 2015.
“Signed By”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair