HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Salina Larocque
Applicant
-and-
Srimoyee Mitra and Catharine Mastin
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: January 21, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 97 Indexed as: Larocque v. Mitra
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Salina Larocque, Applicant Self-represented
Srimoyee Mitra and Catharine Mastin, Respondents Anna Vannelli, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to re-activate her deferred Application.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents are the applicant’s supervisor at the Art Gallery of Windsor and the Director of the Art Gallery. The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding addressing a grievance filed on the applicant’s behalf by her union.
3On October 21, 2015, the applicant’s union and the Art Gallery of Windsor entered into a settlement of the grievance. The settlement was signed by a representative of the Art Gallery, a union representative and the applicant.
4On December 21, 2015, the applicant filed a request to reactivate her deferred Application. The respondents opposed the request on the basis that it was untimely and because of the settlement entered into between the parties.
5The applicant’s request to reactivate her Application is granted. The request is timely as it was filed within the 60 day time limit set out in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The settlement was entered into on October 21, 2015. The 60 day time period would have expired on December 20, 2015. However, since that day fell on a Sunday, the deadline for the reactivation request was the next day, the day on which the applicant filed her request.
6Although I grant the applicant’s request to re-activate her Application, the Tribunal will schedule a preliminary hearing to hear the parties’ submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement signed by the applicant. Directions relating to the preliminary hearing are contained in the Case Assessment Direction accompanying this Interim Decision.
order
7For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s Request to reactivate the Application is granted. However, the Tribunal will schedule a preliminary hearing to hear the parties’ submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process due to the settlement signed by the applicant.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of January, 2016.
“signed by”
__________________________________
Jo-Anne Pickel Vice-chair