HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Commission
-and-
LILLIAN KAMINSKI
Complainant
-and-
PILKINGTON LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD-LOF GLASS OF CANADA LIMITED
DAVID SOULES, LINDSAY BRENNAN, JOHN STEVENS, BRENDA MUTTER,
BARRY STOCKDALE, MURRAY McALPINE
-and-
UNITED STEELEWORKERS OF AMERICA AND EAMMON PATTERSON
Respondents
ORDER
After reading all the materials filed and upon hearing the submissions of all the parties in the motion brought by the United Steelworkers of America and Eammon Patterson for an Order directing the Commission to provide particulars concerning the allegations against each Respondent, and the alternate remedy sought by Pilkington Libbey-Owens-Ford-LOF Glass of Canada Limited, David Soules, Lindsay Brennan, Brenda Mutter and Murray McAlpine to strike any part of the Complaint and any subsequent new allegations contained in the Statement of Facts and Issues that are not particularized, all of which all the other Respondents support;
And after considering whether to grant the motion and order production of particulars as requested by all the Respondents, and considering that section 17 of the Ontario Human Rights Code ("Code") is a defence and not a ground of discrimination, and considering the attendant benefits or prejudices or both to all the parties - including the Respondents' inherent right to know the case to be met with respect to all the allegations against them - in determining whether to grant the motion and order production of particulars, and considering that the entrenched raison d'être of disclosure and the particularizing of allegations is to provide complete information, which may include particulars clarifying legal points, and being convinced that justice will be served best in proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ("Tribunal") when there is complete information available to the Respondents, and being convinced that the role of the Commission, having carriage of the case, is to assist in providing complete information – in a non-adversarial manner, about an alleged violation of the Code which is integral to its function to protect the public interest, and being of the view that the public interest is served best by not confining proceedings before the Tribunal to rigid and narrow limits that might foster the withholding of information about the Complainant's allegations;
And acknowledging that the Commission has provided disclosure to the Respondents, which is voluminous, and in light of the Commission's submission that most of the particulars the Respondents seek is contained in specific documents that the Commission has identified, and considering that the Complaint is merely a notice to the Respondents, and that there are two separate Complaints in this matter – each Complaint alleging violation of different sections of the Code, and naming different respondents, and in the interest of upholding the fundamental goal of administrative tribunals to adjudicate complaints efficiently, economically and timely, especially human rights complaints;
THE TRIBUNAL grants the motion and ORDERS the following:
(1) The Commission to provide the particulars requested (i) in Mr. Healey's letter dated December 12, 2002, (except for questions 5, 9, 20 (which is part of questions 15 to 18) and 21, 22 and 27); (ii) Ms Rusak's letter dated December 11, 2002, (except questions (a) and (b) and 9); (iii) the two questions Mr. Stevens asked in his letter dated December 11, 2002 and; (iv) particulars requested by Ms Cummings in her letter dated December 13, 2002, (except questions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10 to 14 inclusive);
(2) In complying with Item # 1 above, the Commission must state: (a) the exact allegation against each Respondent; (b) how the alleged act violates the Code and the specific section of the Code the Respondent allegedly infringed by that act; (c) where applicable, whether the Commission is alleging that the Respondent was acting in the scope of his employment or as a union representative; and where possible, the date when the alleged act was done and which of the Respondents committed the alleged act;
(3) The Commission shall inform all the Respondents of the exact documents in the disclosure that it says contain the particulars the Respondents have requested and exactly where in each document the information would be found;
(4) The Commission shall comply with this Order by January 21, 2003, 17:00. If it fails to do so without reasons that the Tribunal deems satisfactory, any Respondent may move to have those parts that remain unparticularized stricken from the Complaint.
"2003-01-17" "Patricia E. DeGuire"_____________________
Date Patricia E. DeGuire, Vice-Chair