Piret Hurrell v. CANUSA-CPS, a division of ShawCor Ltd., 2009 HRTO 1754

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 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1754

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.

2A hearing in this matter has been scheduled for November 18, 19 and 20, 2009. In its Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1634, the Tribunal addressed 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. The Interim Decision directed that correspondence be provided by the respondent to the Tribunal and the applicant outlining the outstanding particulars at least 24 hours prior to the date scheduled for a teleconference to deal with the RFOP.

3A teleconference was scheduled for October 15, 2009, a date which the Tribunal determined was mutually convenient for the parties, and counsel for the respondent provided the correspondence mentioned above on October 14, 2009, which outlined the outstanding particulars.

4The teleconference did not proceed on October 15, 2009 due to the unavailability of the applicant's counsel. Subsequent efforts to establish a mutually convenient date for a further teleconference have not been successful.

5Counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal on October 15 outlining the history of the matter, especially with respect to the respondent's efforts to secure particulars, which commenced with the RFOP dated August 11, 2009. It was pointed out that the applicant has never filed a Form 11 in response to the respondent's RFOP. The respondent asks that the Tribunal order particulars to be delivered in a timely fashion in order that the respondent will have sufficient time following the receipt of those particulars to prepare for the hearing.

6The Tribunal orders the applicant to provide to the respondent the particulars outlined in the letter dated October 14, 2009, from the respondent to the Tribunal. Those particulars appear to be arguably relevant to the issues in this case. Such particulars are to be provided by November 2, 2009, and are to be filed with the Tribunal by that date.

7The Tribunal notes that the only response that the applicant has made to the respondent's RFOP is a letter dated September 30 to the Registrar (well beyond the 14-day deadline for responding to the RFOP), indicating that the respondent's request for particulars is "frivolous and vexatious". In the circumstances, that form and type of response is unsatisfactory.

8The respondent also seeks production of the applicant's complete WSIB file. In her correspondence dated August 21, 2009, to the Tribunal, counsel for the applicant offered to produce that file. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the applicant's complete WSIB file be provided to the respondent and be filed with the Tribunal by November 2, 2009. Such production is to be made on the basis that the respondent will pay the reasonable photocopying costs associated with such production.

9In addition, counsel for the respondent seeks clarification of the nature of the documents found at tabs 2 – 11, 15 and 16 of the applicant's productions, which are in the nature of notes as opposed to original documents. The Tribunal orders the applicant to provide to the respondent (with a copy to the Tribunal) a written description of what the notes represent, when they were made and to whom they have been transmitted, by November 2, 2009.