HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
James Ellis and the Applicants listed on Schedule “A”
Applicants
-and-
Petro-Canada Inc.
Respondent
INterim DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
TR-0584-09; TR-0585-09; TR-0617-09; TR-0618-09; TR-0623-09; TR-0626-09; TR-0632-09; TR-0652-09; TR-0688-09; TR-0695-09; TR-0699-09; TR-0712-09; TR-0716-09; TR-0759-09; TR-0763-09
Indexed as: Ellis v. Petro-Canada
INTRODUCTION
1This Interim Decision addresses a Request by the respondents to remove the personal respondents and other case management issues.
2The Tribunal received 20 transitional Applications against the respondents. The applicants are former employees of the corporate respondent who, except for one, were given severance packages in or around May 2005 following a downsizing by the corporate respondent. The applicants all allege that the decision to terminate their employment and not employ them elsewhere in the corporate respondent was because of their age and or disability. Some applicants additionally allege reprisal. Two applicants additionally allege sex and family status.
3A significant aspect of the allegation of discrimination is that the corporate respondent created a ranking of employees and considered age and participation in the attendance management program as factors in ranking the employees.
4In a prior Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1430, I directed that the applications would be heard together. A case management meeting was held on November 23, 2009 and the following matters were determined.
5The parties did not agree to mediation and the matter will proceed to a hearing.
6The applicants have withdrawn their Applications against the personal respondents and they are removed from the style of cause.
7I sought submissions from the parties whether these proceedings should be bifurcated to deal with liability separately from remedy. The respondent opposed bifurcation. The issue of remedy of 20 applicants will require considerable preparation by the applicants, who have indicated that they need actuarial evidence to calculate their pension losses. In addition, there will be significant evidence with respect to mitigation efforts and post-2005 income evidence. In my view, it would be fair and expeditious to bifurcate these proceedings.
8Accordingly, the pension information requested by the applicants for the purpose of calculating pension losses is not relevant at this stage and need not be produced. Similarly, the applicants’ statement of facts does not need to outline any post-2005 activities or income, and documents relating to post-2005 income need not be disclosed at this time.
9Within three weeks of November 23, 2009, Mr. Waddell will deliver written authorizations from the applicants confirming that he is their representative in these Applications.
10Within three weeks of November 23, 2009, the respondent will set out in writing its specific requests for medical records for each applicant. Before I order any disclosure, I will give the applicants an opportunity to respond.
11The applicants will file individual statements of fact setting the facts giving rise to their complaint and why they believe that prohibited grounds played a factor in the respondent’s actions by January 15, 2010. They do not need to include any remedial claims at this time. They shall also disclose all relevant non-privileged documents at this time.
12The respondent will file its statements of additional facts, in response, and make disclosure of relevant, non-privileged documents by March 15, 2010.
13The applicants will be asked to adopt their statements before giving oral evidence.
14If the applicants intend to call any witnesses, other than the applicants, they must file a detailed statement of intended evidence of such witnesses, 20 days before the start of the hearing.
15The respondent shall file detailed statements of intended evidence of its witnesses 20 days before the start of the hearing. The witnesses will be asked to adopt their statements before giving oral evidence.
16The hearing will take place on June 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 21, 2010.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of November, 2009.
“Signed by”
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair
Schedule “A”
APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
James Ellis
T-0190-08
Petro-Canada Inc.
Kevin Howard Lowe
T-0741-08
Petro-Canada Inc.
Frank Kasmara
TR-0511-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
William Brown
TR-0580-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert Paterson
TR-0582-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Richard Kelso
TR-0584-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
George Heelis
TR-0585-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Thomas Saunders
TR-0617-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert Waddell
TR-0618-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Radcliffe Meikle
TR-0623-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
William Michaluk
TR-0626-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Steven Bowie
TR-0632-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Helen Solski
TR-0652-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Susan Cassady
TR-0688-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert March
TR-0695-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Dennis Reeves
TR-0699-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Morris Kocken
TR-0712-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Richard Dimock
TR-0716-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
William Rainey
TR-0759-09
Petro-Canada Inc.
Robert Kreuger
TR-0763-09
Petro-Canada Inc.