Miller v. Ontario Energy Board, 2010 HRTO 2166

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Veredian Miller Applicant

-and-

Ontario Energy Board Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Barr Applicant

-and-

Ontario Energy Board Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Tracey Netto Applicant

-and-

Ontario Energy Board Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Carol Steski Applicant

-and-

Ontario Energy Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2166

Indexed as: Miller v. Ontario Energy Board

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision addresses the scope of the hearing and sets out a direction for the orderly conduct of the first day of hearing, January 20, 2011.

Scope of the Applications

2The respondent objects to facts set out in the applicants’ statements of additional facts, asserting that these facts attempt to expand the scope of the original complaints. The applicants state that the facts do not expand the scope of the Applications but relate either to damages or are post-complaint facts that support the original allegation of discrimination.

Veredian Miller

3Ms. Miller’s complaint filed January 31, 2008, relates to events occurring following her return to work following a medical and parental leave in October 2008. Briefly, she alleges that her office which had been equipped with special lighting to accommodate her migraines was not available. As a result of being placed in an office with regular lighting, she developed migraines and was absent for several days. Following a three-day return to work, she asserts she was subjected to onerous monitoring and work requirements not imposed on other employees, including a requirement to bring a detailed medical note for all medical appointments, and to visit a medical practitioner on the first day of any absence.

4Upon filing the Transition Application on June 30, 2009, the applicant identified additional pre and post-complaint events, including being excluded from a meeting, being told she was “high maintenance” and developing additional health problems (allegedly as a result of the excessive monitoring), leading to a period of sick leave in February 2008. She alleges that she was harassed during this sick leave and not permitted to return to work until September 15, 2008.

5In its Response, the respondent objected to the inclusion of any new facts and asserted that the applicant should file a request to amend the complaint if she wished to rely upon them.

6Upon confirming receipt of the application, the Tribunal noted that the application attempted to amend the original complaint and advised the applicant that if she wished to do so she must file a formal request to amend. She did not do so.

7The applicant repeated the above additional facts in her statement of additional facts in July 2009. The applicant contends that the additional facts asserted relate to facts necessary to establish her requested remedy and/or demonstrate the pattern of discrimination.

8In my view, contrary to the Registrar’s earlier letter of November 24, 2009, the pre-complaint facts that were not specifically set out in the complaint, including being excluded from a meeting and being told that she was high maintenance, do not expand the scope of the Application but merely provide additional details. The respondent is directed to file a response to these allegations within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9Paragraph 4 of the statement of additional facts is responsive to the respondent’s Response and does not expand the scope of the original complaint. The respondent is directed to file a Response to these allegations within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

10Paragraphs 8a to 8h narrate events occurring from February to March 2008 and are relied upon to demonstrate the same alleged pattern of over monitoring. In my view this does not expand the scope of the original complaint but merely provides some minor post-complaint details of the original complaint. The respondent is directed to file a Response to these allegations within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11Paragraph 6b narrates the development of a health condition allegedly related to the respondent’s treatment and support the applicant’s claim for remedy. These facts do not expand the scope of the Application. The respondent is directed to file a Response to these allegations within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

Tracey Netto

12In Ms. Netto’s original complaint dated January 23, 2008, the applicant identified that she experiences a chronic knee condition. She relates concerns regarding a counselling letter she received on October 30, 2007. In her Transitional Application filed June 30, 2009, she included post-complaint events including the respondent’s insistence on receiving medical notes for all physiotherapy appointments, the requirement to take unpaid leave for medical appointments, the development of health effects (allegedly as a result of the respondent’s actions), requiring a leave of absence from May 2008, alleged harassment for taking time off to attend medical appointments upon her return to work in August 2008, and the development of a health condition requiring a medial leave in October 2008.

13Upon confirming receipt of the Application, the Tribunal noted that the Application attempted to amend the original complaint and advised the applicant that, if she wished to do so, she must file a formal request to amend. She did not do so.

14In her statement of additional facts filed July 19, 2009, the applicant included the above additional facts.

15In my view, contrary to the Registrar’s earlier letter of November 24, 2009, paragraphs 4 and 5 do not expand the scope of the original complaint but provide post-complaint details of the same alleged pattern of conduct. The respondent is directed to file a Response to these allegations within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

16Paragraphs 2 to 3 narrate the development of a health condition allegedly related to the respondent’s treatment and support the applicant’s claim for remedy. These facts do not expand the scope of the Application. The respondent is directed to file a Response to these allegations within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

Conduct of the proceedings

17The respondent has sought direction from the Tribunal regarding the proposed conduct of the hearing. The Tribunal directs that the evidence of the four applicants should be heard first, followed by the applicants’ additional witnesses, if any. The respondent’s evidence will proceed next, followed by any reply evidence.

18Only the applicants and respondent need attend for the first day of hearing.