Ogunye v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality), 2017 HRTO 1452

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sherifat Ogunye

Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Unifor Local 1106, Helen Eby, Diana Ulett, Jacqueline Williams, Canday Wilts, Jean Shearer, Leanne Brooker, Kasia Znaniecki, Patricia Wagler, Karrie Mercier and Bill McLachlan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1452

Indexed as: Ogunye v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sherifat Ogunye, Applicant

Self-represented

Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Helen Eby, Diana Ulett, Jacqueline Williams, Canday Wilts, Jean Shearer, Leanne Brooker, Kasia Znaniecki, and Patricia Wagler, Respondents

Carl Peterson and Megan Beal, Counsel

Unifor Local 1106, Karrie Mercier and Bill McLachlan, Respondents

Kathryn Bell, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the timeliness of this Application.

2Section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”) provides as follows:

34. (1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

3The applicant's employment with the respondent Regional Municipality of Waterloo was terminated on September 3, 2015.

4The Tribunal has a record of the Application filed on October 13, 2016. This information was provided to the respondents when the Tribunal delivered the Application to it. The respondents note that October 13, 2016 was more than one year after the termination of the applicant’s employment on September 3, 2015. The respondents submit that the Application should be dismissed as out of time.

5In her submissions, the applicant states that she actually filed the Application on August 16, 2016 and that it was therefore filed within one year of the termination of her employment. She further submits that the respondents continued to discriminate against her in regard to various things that happened after the termination. The applicant has provided a screen shot of a message that appears to be from the Tribunal that acknowledges receipt of an Application and provides an “email reference” number, indicating that the Tribunal received an Application from the applicant on August 16, 2016. The message indicates that a file number would be assigned when the Application was processed. Unfortunately, it appears that the Tribunal did not process the Application at that time. It further appears that the Tribunal may not maintain an accurate record of such email reference responses.

6The applicant advises that she called the Tribunal on October 11, 2016, to find out the status of her Application and she was advised to re-submit the Application, which she did on October 13, 2016.

7On the basis of the available information, it appears that the applicant filed the Application with the Tribunal on August 16, 2016. This would mean that the allegations about events giving rise to the termination of her employment were timely. In addition, the applicant alleges that the respondents continued to discriminate against her after her employment was terminated. The respondents dispute that anything that happened between the parties after the termination of the applicant’s employment had anything to do with the applicant's rights under the Code. However, a determination of this would require evidence about the nature of the events in question.

8At this time, the Tribunal finds that the Application was filed in accordance with section 34 of the Code. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application. The respondents are directed to advise if it is prepared to try mediation at the Tribunal. It should do so within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.