Malcolm Grant v. Bombardier Inc., 2009 HRTO 267

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Malcolm Grant Applicant

-and-

Bombardier Inc. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: March 9, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 267 Indexed as: Grant v. Bombardier

1The applicant filed an Application on December 5, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), arising out of his former employment with the respondent. The applicant checked off “reprisal or threat of reprisal” as the alleged ground for his Application.

2The respondent filed a partial Response on January 19, 2009, in which it raised jurisdictional objections to the Application and requested early dismissal.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order on February 2, 2009, requesting an order that the respondent be required to provide a full Response to the Application; alternatively, that the respondent not be permitted to raise any issue other than jurisdiction; and that the applicant be given additional time to file a Reply.

4The respondent filed a Response to the Request for Order on February 18, 2009 arguing that it is not appropriate, necessary or even possible at this time for it to respond to the allegations in the Application, and claiming that the respondent would be seriously prejudiced if ordered to provide a full response prior to a determination of the issue of jurisdiction.

5It is not necessary for an applicant to make a Request for Order to compel a respondent to file a complete Response. As a matter of course, the Tribunal requires that respondents file complete Responses prior to making any preliminary objections, including jurisdictional objections. There are limited exceptions to this general rule, outlined in Rule 8.2. In Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, at para. 8, the Tribunal summarized these exceptions:

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, that is, when the respondent alleges that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction. The jurisdictional issue raised in the present Application does not fall into any of the four categories identified in Masood.

7The filing of a complete Response is an integral part of the Tribunal’s process. It assists the parties in understanding the nature of the issues, and will enable the Tribunal to make decisions on how to proceed with the Application with a view to facilitating its fair, just and expeditious resolution, including making preliminary findings with respect to jurisdiction.

8The respondent is directed to file a complete Response within 20 days of this decision. The applicant may file a further Reply, if he wishes, dealing only with new matters raised in the Response, not later than 14 days after receipt of the Response.

9The Tribunal will then determine how to deal with the respondent’s request for early dismissal.

10I am not seized of this matter.