HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Natalia Segal
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto, James Caldwell, Indra Morrison, Barrington Hibbert, and Lucky Boothe
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Segal v. Toronto (City)
APPEARANCES BY
Natalia Segal, Applicant ) Melissa Mark, Counsel
City of Toronto, James Caldwell, ) Robert Baldwin, Counsel Indra Morrison, Barrington Hibbert, ) and Lucky Boothe, Respondents )
INTRODUCTION
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address various issues that were raised by the parties at a Case Management Meeting on July 6, 2009.
BACKGROUND
2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 26, 2008, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services and facilities because of her sexual orientation.
3Specifically, the applicant, who is a lesbian and a mother, alleges that the individual respondent, Indra Morrison (the “respondent Morrison”), who supervised her daughter in a City of Toronto after school program, disclosed her sexual orientation to another parent, and then made several homophobic remarks to that parent about the applicant, her daughter, and gay and lesbian parents in general. She also alleges that the respondent Morrison contacted a public health nurse about her daughter on the basis that the applicant’s daughter and her friend hugged and cuddled more than “normal” girls do. The applicant further alleges that she complained to the other respondents about the respondent Morrison’s discriminatory comments and conduct, but they failed to take her complaint seriously and did not conduct a full and proper investigation.
4The respondents filed a Response to the Application on January 27, 2009, which denies the allegations of discrimination. The respondent Morrison denies that she made any homophobic comments to another parent about the applicant or her daughter. She admits that she spoke with a public health nurse about the applicant’s daughter and her friend’s disruptive behaviour in the program, but denies that it had anything to do with sexual orientation or that she knew at the time that the applicant is a lesbian. The other respondents deny that they failed to properly investigate the applicant’s complaint. They state that the investigation revealed there was a misunderstanding about what the respondent Morrison had said to the other parent, and there was no convincing evidence that she had made homophobic comments or engaged in any discriminatory conduct.
5The hearing is scheduled for November 19 and 20, 2009.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
6The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on May 28, 2009, which requested that the respondents disclose their arguably relevant documents and a witness list pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. On the same day, the respondents disclosed to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal various documents, a witness list, and witness statements.
7At the Case Management Meeting on July 6, 2009, the applicant’s counsel requested that the Tribunal deal with one outstanding issue in the Request: the failure of the respondents to disclose witness statements. The respondent’s counsel submitted that such witness statements were already disclosed to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal on May 28.
8I have reviewed the respondents’ disclosure package and noted that there are witness statements, which were written by each witness. My understanding of the applicant’s counsel’s submission is that the respondents should also disclose a summary of each witness’ expected evidence, which is written by someone else, presumably the respondents’ counsel. There is no such requirement in the Tribunal’s Rules. I agree with the respondents’ counsel that the witness statements have already been disclosed. The applicant’s Request is therefore denied.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
9The applicant’s counsel also requested that the Tribunal not allow one of the respondents’ witnesses, P.F., to testify because his witness statement indicates that he will only be testifying that the respondent Morrison is a person of good character, specifically, that she is not a homophobic person. The applicant’s counsel submits that it well-established in the Tribunal’s case law that character evidence is not admissible: Rubio v