HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andriy (Andy) Krykunenko
Applicant
-and-
Unifor and Tim Carrie
Respondents
AND BETWEEN:
Olga Oleanovski
Applicant
-and-
Unifor and Tim Carrie
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Krykunenko v. Unifor
APPEARANCES
Andriy Krykunenko and Olga Oleanovski, Applicants
Self-represented
Unifor and Tim Carrie, Respondents
Farah Baloo, Counsel
Introduction
1A summary hearing was held to determine whether these Applications should be dismissed in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it would succeed.
decision and Analysis
2The applicants, who are spouses, filed these related Applications concerning events that took place when they attended Unifor’s Family Education Program, a residential week-long program in Port Elgin for members of Unifor and their families. It is a condition of acceptance into the program that all family members who attend must participate in the program, including all children over the age of 3. Those children younger than that are expected to be cared for at the on-site child care centre.
3The applicant, Andriyi Krykunenko, alleges discrimination with respect to services because of family status and association contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant, Olga Oleanovski, alleges discrimination because of sex and family status. At the time of the events in question, she was three-months pregnant with twins.
4It is common ground between the parties that Ms. Oleanovski did not attend the evening plenary session on the first day, nor did she attend the morning sessions on the second day of the program. Moreover, the applicants did not enrol their 18-month old daughter in the daycare program on the second morning. A confrontation arose when Ms. Oleanovski attempted to take her daughter to the playground associated with the child care centre. The applicants were asked to leave the program on the second day.
5Many of the facts are in dispute. It is not the purpose of a summary hearing to decide those facts. Instead, the Tribunal relies on the factual allegations of the applicants to determine whether the Applications have “no reasonable prospect of success,” the test used by the Tribunal. See Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
6In this summary hearing, the focus was on whether the facts, as alleged in the Applications, amounted to discrimination on the basis of an enumerated ground under the Code. It appeared from their pleadings that the applicants were asserting that Unifor’s alleged failure to provide adequate facilities for their infant daughter amounted to discrimination on the basis of family status, and that there should have been no requirement for the applicant Oleanovski to participate in the program given that she was both pregnant and was required to look after their daughter.
7However, at the hearing, the applicant Krykunenko took the position that the failure to provide the facilities simply slowed the ability of the applicants to successfully introduce their daughter into the day care centre. Also, the lengthy drive to the Family Education program had left Ms. Oleanovski feeling poorly and unable to participate. He said they understood that, as his spouse, she was expected to attend the sessions, but that in light of her high-risk pregnancy, and the needs of their very young daughter, they required time to gradually make the transition. He framed this as an accommodation of his wife and family’s needs.
8I would note at this stage that these are allegations, and that the respondents take a very different view concerning what transpired. However, on the basis of the re-framing and/or clarification of the factual allegations at the summary hearing, I cannot conclude that the Applications have no reasonable prospect of success.
Next Steps
9The applicants have not consented to mediation. They are to indicate within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision whether they wish to participate in medication. In the event that they do consent, a Notice of Mediation will be sent to the parties; otherwise, a Notice of Hearing will be sent to the parties in due course.
order
10The respondent’s request to dismiss the Application on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success is dismissed.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair