Thomas v. IATSE Local 822, 2016 HRTO 251

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Rose Marie Thomas Applicant

-and-

IATSE Local 822, Domenic Marcone, Cheryl Batulis, Heather Clarkson, Mathew Loeb, David Mirvish, Blair Egglestone, IATSE 58, IATSE 129, IATSE 461, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd., Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: February 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 251 Indexed as: Thomas v. IATSE Local 822

1This Application was deferred pending the Tribunal’s determination of another Application, Tribunal file number 2009-02058-I (“2009 Application”): 2013 HRTO 353. On December 1, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking, among other things, to reactivate the Application and to add parties. The purpose of the Interim Decision is to determine that request.

2The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against her in employment, contracts, and in membership in a vocational association based on disability and sex. She also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

3In a previous Interim Decision, I held that there is a significant overlap between this Application and the 2009 Application. Both matters raise similar legal and factual issues and the success of this Application will depend in part on the factual conclusions the Tribunal makes in the 2009 Application, particularly concerning the allegations against Mr. Marcone. For these reasons, I held that the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding was to defer consideration of this Application pending the Tribunal’s determination of the 2009 Application: 2013 HRTO 353.

4On June 30, 2015, I issued an Interim Decision, dismissing the 2009 Application in part: 2015 HRTO 872. The allegations against the applicant’s union, her former employer, and a number of personal respondents were dismissed. I held that the 2009 Application could proceed against the personal respondent, Domenic Marcone.

5Following this June 30, 2015 Interim Decision, the applicant asked that this Application be reactivated because (among other things) she wished to add a party. In an Interim Decision dated August 31, 2015, I dismissed the request. I held that it was not appropriate to reactive this Application until the 2009 Application has been finally determined in its entirety.

Request to Add Further Parties

6On December 1, 2015, the applicant filed a further RFOP. She requests that this Application be reactivated and she seeks to add parties. In her RFOP, the applicant requests:

reactivation of the file in order that "Stephen Paquette" and "Live Nation Inc." be ordered to confirm receipt of the Form 10 file and listed attachments delivered to the tribunal on November 23 2015. It is further requested that Live Nation Inc. and Stephen Paquette clarify who is the employer of Stephen Paquette when he is working or has worked at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto

7I note that Stephen Paquette and Live Nation Inc. are not parties to this Application. The applicant argues that her request warrants the reactivation of the Application because:

There are notice issues affecting the liability of two respondents if the file is not reactivated. The harm that will result is that notice may not properly be served of the allegations on these two respondents. If the file is not reactivated the respondents may evade liability for serious infringements of the Code by later claiming they did not receive notice within the tribunal's one year deadline.

8For the reasons set out in my Interim Decision of August 31, 2015, the RFOP is dismissed.

9In addition, it is significant that this Application was filed in 2011. The applicant expresses concern that, if this Application is not reactivated, the proposed additional respondents may claim that they have not received notice within the limitation period set out in the Code. While it is not necessary for me to determine the issue at this stage of the proceeding, I note that even if this matter were reactivated, it is not clear that the applicant’s request to add parties currently falls within the limitation period under section 34 of the Code.