Lebert Alladice v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2009 HRTO 1755

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lebert Alladice

Applicant

-and-

Honda of Canada Mfg.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1755

Indexed as: Alladice v. Honda of Canada

1This is an Application filed January 16, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Hearing in this matter is scheduled to proceed on November 2, 2009.

2On October 16, 2009, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal seeking further particulars from the applicant and requesting an adjournment of the hearing until the applicant complied. I note this was not in the form of a Request for Order During Proceeding served on the applicant and triggering an obligation on the applicant to file a response to the request.

3The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request that the applicant provide further particulars.

4In a Notice of Hearing and Required Preparation dated July 6, 2009, the Tribunal directed the parties to file statements of additional fact and remedy (if any), make disclosure of all arguably relevant documents (if any), and file a list of witnesses and will says statements within specified timelines. The deadline for the applicant to file his statement of additional facts and remedy and make disclosure was July 12, 2009. The applicant did not meet this deadline but filed a statement of additional facts on September 14, 2009. The applicant has not filed a list of witnesses or witness statements. The respondent did not raise any concerns with the timing or quality of the applicant’s production and disclosure until October 16, just two weeks prior to the hearing.

5It is important to note that if an applicant does not have any additional facts or does not wish to make any additional remedial claims other than set out in the original complaint, then the failure to file a statement of additional facts and remedy does not amount to a breach of the Tribunals’ Rules. Similarly, if the applicant does not have any arguably relevant documents in his possession, it is not a breach of the Tribunal’s Rules to fail to provide them. At the same time, the Tribunal’s Rules provide for sanctions on a party which fails to comply with its obligations to disclose and produce in a timely fashion. The respondent may pursue those sanctions if necessary at the hearing.

6In this case, the original complaint filed by the applicant with the Human Rights Commission on January 25, 2008 alleges that the applicant was effectively dismissed from employment by the respondent because the respondent perceived the applicant’s health condition interfered with his ability to work. The letter from the respondent, dated January 21, 2008 confirmed that the applicant would not be permitted to return to work until the respondent was satisfied that the applicant had obtained suitable medical treatment.

7The respondent’s professed inability to understand the case it has to meet in this proceeding is puzzling. The original complaint and accompanying documents indicate that the applicant is asserting that he was asked not to return to work because of disability. The respondent’s letter confirms this. Presumably, the respondent is aware of the medical information that led it to issue the letter of January 21, 2008. Indeed, the respondent has had no difficulty in filing its Response, documents and witness statements. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent has been provided with sufficient particulars to understand the allegations of discrimination it has to meet.

8I also note that the respondent did not raise its concerns in a timely fashion. Rather, it waited until October 16, 2009 to pursue its request for particulars and, by so delaying, now argues that an adjournment is necessary. The Tribunal relies upon parties to pursue their rights in a timely fashion.

9The respondent’s request for further particulars and an adjournment is denied. The hearing will proceed on November 2, 2009 as scheduled.