David Wood v. Sears Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 2126

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Wood Applicant

-and-

Sears Canada Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: December 8, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2126 Indexed as: Wood v. Sears Canada

1This is an Application filed on June 22, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

2The Application was sent to the respondent, which has not filed a Response but has instead filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings. In the Request, the respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the Application or in the alternative, order the applicant to provide particulars. The respondent also requests an extension of time to file its Response.

3The Tribunal’s Rules require a full Response from respondents, even when they are raising an objection to an application which they seek to have determined on a preliminary basis. 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.

4In Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, the Tribunal stated that it will also permit respondents who assert that the matter falls under federal, rather than provincial, jurisdiction to raise this issue without filing a full Response.

5As 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.

6The 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 will not delay the filing of a complete response.

7The Tribunal acknowledges that the respondent’s Request sets out in some detail the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s termination from employment, which is at issue in the Application. Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to require a full Response before proceeding further with the Application.

8The respondent is directed to file a Response by December 18, 2009. The Request to dismiss and for further particulars will be deferred until after the time for filing a Response and then a Reply has elapsed, after which the Tribunal will consider how best to proceed with this Application, including whether to deal with the respondent’s requests as preliminary issues.

9I am not seized of this matter.