HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christine Bissonnette
Applicant
-and-
Windsor Police Services Board, Albert Frederick, Rick Derus, Vince Power, and Rick Facciolo
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Bruce Best
Indexed as: Bissonnette v. Windsor Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Christine Bissonnette, Applicant
Self-represented
Windsor Police Services Board, Albert Frederick, Rick Derus, Vince Power, and Rick Facciolo, Respondents
Suzanne M. Porter, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant filed two Applications with the Tribunal against the Windsor Police Services Board (the “Board”) and several senior officers in the Windsor Police Service (the “Service”), alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of gender and age under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The allegations primarily relate to the applicant’s unsuccessful attempts to be promoted to the rank of inspector.
2By Interim Decision dated December 16, 2016, I addressed a number of procedural requests. Further to the Interim Decision, a number of allegations are proceeding to a hearing on the merits. I also consolidated the Applications, and the allegations are proceeding only under the file number 2015-20030-I.
3The Applicant has subsequently filed a further Request to amend her Application to include allegations respecting the promotional process in the fall of 2016. The allegations are both that the applicant’s failure to be promoted was again due to discrimination on the basis of gender, and further that she was subject to reprisal in the manner in which she was treated during the process.
4The respondents oppose the request to amend. They argue that the new allegations are frivolous and vexatious, do not disclose a prima facie case, and have no reasonable prospect of success. As with some of the previous amendments requested by the Applicant addressed in the December 2016 Interim Decision, with respect to the allegations of reprisal the respondents take the position that the applicant will not be able to establish an intention to reprise, which it correctly notes is a necessary element to establish a violation of s.8 of the Code. However, in my view, as with the allegations of reprisal noted in the December 2016 Interim Decision, the determination of these allegations will require the hearing of evidence, and as such will be determined at the hearing on the merits.
5The proposed amendments are new allegations which are closely related to, and follow from, the allegations already raised. In my view, it is most fair, just and expeditious that these allegations be considered together with the allegations already raised. The request to amend is, therefore, granted.
6The respondents have already filed a detailed response to the new allegations in their Form 11 Response to the Request to Amend, and as such it is not necessary to require the parties to file further amended pleadings. The Applicant may, however, file a Reply, limited to any new issues raised in the respondents’ Response to the Request to Amend.
7This Application has now been scheduled for a hearing on the merits in February 2018. The Notice of Hearing provided that the parties were required to exchange their arguably relevant documents by August 24, 2017. Given my above decision to grant the applicant’s request to amend, and to permit the applicant to file a Reply, this date is extended to September 21, 2017.
Order and Directions
8The request to amend the Application is granted.
9The applicant may file a Reply to the Respondent’s Response to the Request to Amend, limited to any new issues raised, by August 24, 2017.
10The date for the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s rules of Procedure is extended to September 21, 2017.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of August, 2017.
“Signed by”
Bruce Best
Vice-chair