Sandrine Tonoukouin v. Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture and Mulugeta Abai, 2016 HRTO 1659

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sandrine Tonoukouin

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture and Mulugeta Abai

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 22, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1659

Indexed as: Tonoukouin v. Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sandrine Tonoukouin, Applicant

Olanyi Parsons, Counsel

Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture and Mulugeta Abai, Respondents

Andrew Pinto, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application as untimely and the applicant’s production request.

2By Application filed on April 28, 2016, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). She also alleged that the personal respondent subjected her to sexual solicitation or advances and that the respondents reprised against her contrary to the Code. In her Application, the applicant indicated that the last incident of discrimination occurred on November 25, 2016, the date she resigned her employment.

Respondents’ Request to dismiss

3The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that, with one exception, all of the specific allegations made against the respondents allegedly occurred more than one year before the applicant filed this Application. The respondents submit that the one specific allegation that occurred within the one year period before the Application was filed cannot reasonably be found to amount to a violation of the Code.

4In her Response to the respondent’s request, the applicant clarified that the last instance of alleged sexual harassment occurred on October 25, 2015.

Finding

5Section 34 of the Code provides that a person may file an application alleging that his or her rights under the Code have been infringed within one year of the incident or the last incident of a series of incidents.

6In my view, the incidents set out in the Application amount to a series of incidents, the last of which occurred less than a year before the applicant filed her Application. Although I agree with the respondents that this was not entirely clear from the Application, the applicant has now provided particulars relating to an incident of alleged discrimination that occurred in October 2015 which is less than a year before the Application was filed. Due to the particulars the applicant has provided relating to the October 2015 incident, I do not have to address whether the other specific allegation that occurred within the one year time period could reasonably amount to a violation of the Code. I also do not have to address whether the applicant’s resignation amounts to an incident of alleged discrimination.

applicant’s production request

7The applicant filed a request for the production of various materials from the respondents. Her request is denied as premature.

8Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) sets out a process and deadlines for the disclosure of documents prior to a hearing. The Tribunal will only require parties to engage in early production of documents in exceptional circumstances. There is nothing exceptional in the circumstances of this case that would justify early production of documents. If the respondents do not produce all arguably relevant documents to the applicant within the time frame set out in the Rules, the applicant may renew her production request at the appropriate time.

9As a final point, the applicant should take note that the Rules do not provide for a right of reply to another party’s response to a Request for Order During Proceedings. The applicant should refrain from replying to such responses in the future. If the Tribunal requires a reply from a party, it will seek one.

ORDERs and Directions

10For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondents’ request to dismiss the Application as untimely is denied; and

b. The applicant’s production request is denied as premature.