Dickson v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation, 2016 HRTO 321

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Teresa Dickson

Applicant

-and-

Quinte Healthcare Corporation and UNIFOR

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: March 11, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 321

Indexed as: Dickson v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Teresa Dickson, Applicant

Karen Sanchez, Counsel

Quinte Healthcare Corporation, Respondent

Maureen Houston, Counsel

UNIFOR, Respondent

No submissions filed

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, sex, and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant was self-represented when she filed her Application. A copy of the Application was sent to both respondents.

2In Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 52, amongst other orders, the Tribunal ordered the respondent Quinte Healthcare Corporation (“Quinte”) to file a Response within 35 days of receiving the applicant’s medical records. The Response has not yet been filed by Quinte.

3Subsequent to the issuance of the Interim Decision, the applicant retained counsel and filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to increase the monetary remedies set out on her Application as well as adding UNIFOR as a respondent.

4Quinte filed a Response to the RFOP in which it stated that it takes no position about the RFOP.

5UNIFOR has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

monetary remedies

6As there is no opposition to the applicant’s request to amend the monetary remedies she is seeking to $92,812.03, the Tribunal grants this request.

adding unifor as a respondent

7The Tribunal held in Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, 2009 HRTO 1513, that when determining a request to add a respondent, the Tribunal should consider the following three questions:

1. Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

2. If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

3. Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

8In her Application, the applicant makes a number of allegations about how Quinte and UNIFOR, her bargaining agent in the workplace, failed to accommodate her disability in the workplace. It is still early in the Tribunal’s process, in that Quinte has not yet filed its Response, and the applicant was self-represented when she filed her Application. There is no opposition from Quinte or UNIFOR to UNIFOR being named as a respondent.

9In these circumstances, UNIFOR is added as a respondent. It is directed to file its Response with the Tribunal within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

order

10The Tribunal orders the following:

a. The monetary remedy for which the applicant is seeking in her Application is amended to $92,812.03;

b. UNIFOR is added as a respondent; and,

c. UNIFOR has 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file a Response with the Tribunal.

11I am not seized with this matter.