Mounir v. Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre, 2010 HRTO 1413

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Malika Mounir

Applicant

-and-

Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre and Anthony Hutchinson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: June 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1413

Indexed as: Mounir v. Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Malika Mounir, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre ) Tyler Inkster, Counsel

and Anthony Hutchinson, Respondents )

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the parties’ Requests to amend the pleadings, and to provide directions to the parties with respect to managing the hearing. The hearing is scheduled for June 29 and 30, 2010.

2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on December 1, 2009, which requested that the Tribunal allow her to amend her Application. The respondents filed a Response to the Request on December 14, 2009, which consented to the applicant’s Request on the condition that she consent to their Request that the Tribunal allow them to amend their Response. The latter Request was filed on the same date. The applicant did not file a Response to it.

3I see no reason not to allow the parties to amend their pleadings. The Tribunal therefore grants the applicant’s Request to amend her Application and the respondents’ Request to amend their Response.

4I have reviewed the parties’ pleadings and their disclosure of witnesses and documents, and have some concerns that the applicant has not clearly set out what her position is with respect to the Code-related issues, and that both parties are intending to present documentary evidence and call witnesses that are repetitive and tangential with respect to core issues in the case. Accordingly, the first hour of the hearing on June 29, 2010 will deal with the following case management issues:

1. In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents terminated her employment because of her disability, specifically, a workplace injury. The respondents have disclosed a number of documents that appear to indicate that they decided to terminate her employment prior to her injury. The applicant’s witness statement does not indicate that she intends to testify that the respondents discriminated against her because of a disability. The applicant should clarify whether she still intends to pursue this allegation.

2. In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents subjected her to reprisal or threat of reprisal because she refused to infringe on another person’s rights under the Code. There is a reference in the narrative of the Application to the applicant’s alleged refusal to infringe on another person’s rights, but there is no explanation in her original or amended Application or her witness statement as to how exactly the respondents reprised or threatened to reprise against her. In fact, the applicant’s witness statement does not indicate that she intends to testify that the respondents subjected her to reprisal or threat of reprisal. The applicant should clarify whether she still intends to pursue this allegation.

3. The applicant disclosed witness statements for herself and six witnesses which contain a new allegation that was not in her original or amended Application. She alleges that the respondents asked male employees who reported to her to take on some of her duties. The applicant should clarify why this allegation was not in her original or amended Application, and whether she is seeking an order from the Tribunal to further amend her Application.

4. The applicant intends to call six witnesses in addition to herself. Some of the witness statements only have general allegations of mistreatment or incompetence with no clear link to a Code ground, or the respondents’ allegation that the applicant had work performance issues. Some of the witnesses’ evidence also appears to be repetitive. The applicant should clarify how each witness’s evidence will be relevant to the issues in the case, and explain why each witness should be heard.

5. The respondents intend to call five witnesses in addition to the personal respondent. Some of the witnesses’ proposed evidence appears to be repetitive, and the proposed evidence of one witness (Khadija Youssef) appears to be good character evidence with respect to the personal respondent. The respondents should clarify how each witness’s evidence will be relevant to the issues in the case, and explain why each witness, and particularly Ms. Youssef, should be heard.

5After hearing the parties’ submissions on these issues, I may issue further case management directions, and/or may make orders that define and narrow the issues in order to decide the Application, determine and direct the order in which evidence will be presented, and/or limit the evidence or submissions on any issue (Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure).