Hurrell v. CANUSA-CPS, 2009 HRTO 1634

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Piret Hurrell

Applicant

-and-

CANUSA-CPS, a division of ShawCor Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: October 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1634

Indexed as: Hurrell v. CANUSA-CPS

1In this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, as well as reprisal.

2The matter is scheduled for hearing on November 18, 19 and 20, 2009. This Interim Decision will address the respondent’s Request for Order during Proceedings (RFOP) dated August 11, 2009, which requests particulars and an order directing that the applicant answer a lengthy series of questions related to her allegations in the Application.

3The Application contains a series of allegations which allege discrimination and a failure to accommodate on the part of the respondent. Many of the allegations do not contain any reference to the date(s) on which the various incidents and communications are alleged to have taken place. Furthermore, in many cases, there is no reference to the persons involved in the incident; for example, the names of the representatives of the respondent who are alleged to have conducted themselves in a discriminatory fashion.

4The respondent filed a Response which expressly reserved its right to require further particulars, but which contained a detailed recital of the facts upon which the respondent relies to rebut many, but not all, of the allegations made against it.

5Both parties have filed extensive documentation in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules, which requires the production of all arguably relevant documents in the parties’ possession. The applicant’s documents contain some information such as dates, person’s names, etc., which furnish some, but not all, the particulars sought by the respondent.

6The respondent’s RFOP attached a lengthy Schedule A consisting of many questions which the respondent seeks to have answered by the applicant. In addition, by way of correspondence to the Tribunal, the respondent has sought the production of the applicant’s WSIB file, on the basis that it is arguably relevant to the issues in the case.

7In my view, the most expeditious way to determine the respondent’s RFOP is to hold a teleconference in which the particulars requested will be reviewed in detail and appropriate directions will be provided by the Tribunal.

8At least 24 hours before the date scheduled for the teleconference, the respondent is directed to advise the Tribunal in writing, with a copy to the applicant, of the particulars which remain outstanding in light of the information provided by the applicant in her arguably relevant documents, which were provided to the Tribunal and counsel for the respondent by letter dated August 21, 2009.

9The Registrar will schedule a teleconference with the parties as soon as possible.