HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
B E T W E E N:
Jayne Ugolini
Applicant
-and-
Salvation Army Barrie, Charlene Randell and Roy Randell
Respondents
______________________________________________________________________
DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Ugolini v. Salvation Army Barrie
______________________________________________________________________
1The applicant filed an application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on May 11, 2009. A copy of the Application was sent to the respondents on August 27, 2009. In the Application, the applicant alleges discrimination in the context of employment based on disability and marital status.
3On September 30, 2009, the Salvation Army and the personal respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“Request”). In the Request, the respondents seek an order dismissing the Application for failing to disclose a prima facie case, and, in the alternative, an order that the applicant provide particulars, an extension of time to file the Response, and an order removing the personal respondents as parties to the Application
4The applicant has filed a Form 11 outlining her position on the issues raised and including further particulars with respect to her Application.
5As a matter of course, the Tribunal requires respondents to file complete responses prior to making any preliminary objections, including those relating to jurisdiction. The limited exceptions to this general rule are outlined in Rule 8.2 and summarized as follows in Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, at para. 8:
The Tribunal’s response form permits a request for early dismissal without a full response in only three circumstances: where the respondent alleges that a claim for relief based upon the same facts was filed in civil court, that a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based upon the same, or substantially the same facts, or that a full and final release was signed. In all other circumstances, respondents must file a full response, even where a preliminary or jurisdictional issue is being raised.
6The Tribunal in Masood created an additional fourth category of cases in which a full Response may not be necessary, namely when the respondent alleges that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction. The preliminary issues raised in the present Request do not fall into any of the four categories identified in Masood.
7As the Tribunal indicated in Grant v. Bombardier, 2009 HRTO 267, the filing of a complete response is an integral part of the Tribunal’s process. It allows the parties to better understand the nature of the issues and assists the Tribunal in determining how best to proceed with the Application with a view to facilitating its fair, just and expeditious resolution, including making preliminary determinations.
8The Tribunal may vary or waive the application of its Rules, including the requirement to file a full Response. Absent exceptional circumstances, which are not present in this case, a request for particulars or production of documents will not delay the filing of a complete response. Here, the allegations are sufficiently detailed and, in my view, the respondents are in a position to meaningfully respond to the Application.
9Of course, it remains open to the respondents to raise preliminary issues in the Response or to file a Request for an Order during Proceedings after filing the Response.
9The respondents are directed to file a complete Response within 14 days of this Interim Decision. Not later than 14 days after receipt of the Response, the applicant may file a Reply, if she wishes. The Reply should deal only with new matters raised in the Response.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of October, 2009.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair