Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Suresh Pal Singh
Applicant
-and-
QBD Cooling Systems Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Singh v. QBD Cooling Systems
1The applicant filed this Application, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. He also filed a Reply following receipt of the Response by the respondent.
2The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding (Form 10) to strike portions of the Reply which it states are either a repetition of matters raised in the Application or address matters which were not raised in the Response. Rule 9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states, in part:
9.1 An Applicant who intends to prove a version of the facts different from those set out in a Response must deliver a Reply in Form 3 setting out the different version, unless it is already contained in the Application. An Applicant may also reply to any other matter raised in the Response.
9.2 The Reply must deal only with new matters that are raised in the Response.
3The applicant prepared the Application without the assistance of counsel. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain the substance of his allegations given the manner in which they were written and the lack of particulars. His Reply, which was prepared by counsel, gives a clearer and more detailed account of the applicant's allegations as well as responding to the new matters raised in the Response.
4While it is possible to view the version of the facts in the impugned sections of the Reply as similar to the version set out in the Application, they are helpful to the Tribunal in that they clarify the applicant's allegations. With the exception of the paragraphs dealt with below, I am, therefore, not prepared to strike them.
5Paragraph 15 of the Reply alleges that there are incidents "within the knowledge of the respondent" concerning steps taken by the respondent "to deny and/or limit the legal rights of its employees pursuant to the Employment Standards Act and/or the Human Rights Code." Given that these incidents are apparently outside the knowledge of the applicant, it is difficult to understand how they might properly form part of his Application. Accordingly, that paragraph is struck.
6Paragraphs 43-44 allege malice on the part of the respondent for the manner in which it terminated the applicant's employment, which the applicant states, "stands as an independent cause of action." The applicant appears to be suggesting that the respondent is liable for something other than a breach of the Code. This is not properly part of the Application and these paragraphs are struck.
7Likewise, paragraph 62 asserts, "With respect to any issues raised in the complaint that are not directly related to the Code, the applicant pleads that this Honourable Tribunal has sufficient jurisdiction pursuant to the Code to adjudicate such issues." It is difficult to see how a paragraph like that is properly part of a Reply and this paragraph is struck.
8There are other elements of the Application and Reply which appear to relate to allegations of unfairness, but which, on their face, appear to be unconnected to the Code. These may be the subject of further orders by the Vice-chair or Member assigned to hear the matter.
9Both paragraph 45 and paragraph 63 set out that the applicant is seeking damages beyond that sought in his Application. In paragraph 45, the unspecified amount sought is for the mental anguish caused by the respondent's alleged malicious manner of terminating the applicant's employment. In paragraph 63, the applicant seeks an additional $50,000.00 in damages for the loss of WSIB benefits caused by the respondent's alleged conduct. These paragraphs constitute significant amendments to the Application, and should be the subject of a Request for Order During Proceedings. Accordingly, paragraphs 45 and 63 are struck.
10Finally, the applicant withdraws his agreement to mediation in paragraph 64. Although the applicant has the right to do this at any stage, it is not properly part of his Reply and is also struck.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of November, 2010.
"signed by"__________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair