HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Cathy Moncur
Applicant
-and-
Beach Grove Golf and Country Club and Romano Curti
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: December 1, 2008
Citation: 2008 HRTO 327
Indexed as: Moncur v. Beach Grove Golf and Country Club
[1] This is an Application, filed on September 11, 2008, in which the applicant alleges harassment and discrimination by the respondents on the basis of sex and disability in the provision of goods, services and facilities contrary to s. 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is represented by counsel. The respondents filed their Response on October 20, 2008. The applicant did not file a Reply by the deadline. The next step in the process is to set hearing dates.
[2] In the Response, the respondents request particulars of specific allegations made in the Application. I agree with the respondents that some of the applicant’s allegations about harassment and discrimination have been broadly asserted without details of the facts in support of them. For example, the applicant alleges that she was treated differently from male members of the curling club, but does not set out factual details about the particular treatment that she alleges was different. Similarly, she alleges that the respondents “engaged and continues to engage to this day in behaviour that degrades, minimizes, humiliates, harasses and trivializes Ms. Moncur, her concerns, her role within the Club and her membership within the Club in a manner that would not be engaged in if she were a male member of the Club,” but does not provide details of what the alleged behaviour was.
[3] Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires that applications specifically set out the underlying facts in support of allegations of discrimination. Rule 6.2 states:
A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and must set out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant’s rights under the Code.
[4] Rule 5.7 provides that a possible consequence for a party which does not set out specific facts in its Application or Response is that the Tribunal may not allow the party to introduce evidence with respect to those facts. It reads as follows:
Where a party seeks to present evidence or make submissions with respect to a fact or issue that was not raised in the Application, Response, Reply, or in the materials filed under Rule 17.2 or 18.2, the Tribunal may refuse to allow the party to present evidence or make submissions about the fact or issue unless satisfied that there would be no substantial prejudice and no undue delay to the proceedings.
[5] The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal, within seven days of the date of this decision, a further statement setting out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, and where and when it happened with respect to each fact upon which she relies. To avoid disputes at the hearing over whether adequate notice of the factual allegations was given to the respondents, the applicant may wish to consider the concerns set out at paragraphs 9, 16-20 and 25 of the Response.
[6] The respondents will have fourteen (14) days following the applicant’s seven (7) days to respond to any new facts set out by the applicant.
[7] The Registrar is directed to set hearing dates. I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of December, 2008.
“Signed by”
Alison Renton
Vice-Chair