Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Galina Okouneva Applicant
-and-
Ryerson University and Dr. Mohamed Lachemi Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: November 16, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1474 Indexed as: Okouneva v. Ryerson University
Galina Okouneva, Applicant Aaron Rousseau, Counsel
Ryerson University and Dr. Mohamed Lachemi, Respondents Simon Mortimer, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application was filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on April 24, 2012, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex.
2In July 2012, the respondents filed a Request to have the Application dismissed on the basis that it had been filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination. The respondents also sought, in the alternative, that any untimely allegations be struck, that the individual respondent be removed as a party, and that the Application be deferred on the basis that there was a related grievance which was ongoing.
3The Application was deferred pending the outcome of the grievance. It was reactivated on the consent of the parties on June 9, 2016. The Tribunal determined that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate to hold a preliminary hearing to address the issues raised in the respondent’s Request, and to address whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code.
4The preliminary hearing is now scheduled for November 18, 2016. On August 2, 2016, the respondents filed their submissions on the issues to be determined at this preliminary hearing. The applicant filed her submissions on the issues to be determined at this preliminary hearing on August 11, 2016 along with a Request to Amend the Application.
5In the Request to Amend the Application, the applicant has added an allegation that the applicant was terminated from her employment on May 18, 2011. The Request does not provide any particulars of how this alleged termination is connected to the grounds of sex, disability or reprisal. As well, the Request does not provide any reasons for the delay in making this Request to Amend.
6The applicant alleges that the Application is still in its infancy as there has been no documentary disclosure or exchange of witness statements. The applicant submits that the respondents would not be prejudiced by this amendment as the respondents have been fully aware of the applicant’s termination throughout the course of this Application.
7The respondents oppose the Request to Amend on the basis that is untimely, there is not reasonable prospect that this allegation would succeed and that to allow this amendment at this point would cause prejudice to the respondents.
8The respondents submit that including an allegation of termination at this point would be entirely change the context of the allegations of discrimination. They allege that the applicant was a contract employee and that in accordance with the collective agreement she had a period of time that could be extended to meet the criteria to be granted a tenure position. Failure to be recommended for a tenure position, resulted in an end to that contract. They allege that when she received notice that a final decision to deny tenure had been made she knew her employment with the respondent would cease.
9The respondents submit that to now include the allegation that she was terminated on May 18, 2011 would significantly broaden the scope of the Application which would require the respondents to respond to entirely different issues, such as: the nature of pre-tenure and tenure employment; terms of the collective agreement; past tenure settlements and all settlement discussions during the applicant’s tenure Arbitration; the class schedule for Spring