HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Alita Carter
Applicant
-and-
Tony Viera
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Carter v. Tony Vieira
1The applicant filed this Application on August 17, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, sexual orientation, marital status and age. The respondent has not filed a Response, but instead brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking for further particulars and requesting an extension to file his Response.
2The applicant provided the following answer to question 8 in her Application:
What happened: - mental stress
- bullying in the workplace
Who was involved: -supervisor
When it happened (day, month, year): -at least 3 times in the last 1 ½ [sic] of employment
Where it happened: -at work
3The applicant indicated, in response to the direction under question 8 to give details of every incident of discrimination, that everything was explained in her letter to the company, dated April 19, 2010, which she enclosed with her Application. However, this letter mostly contains details of matters seemingly outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, including problems with getting her winter hat, not being “allowed to rotate on breaks,” not getting an afternoon break and witnessing other employees speeding.
4The letter does include a reference to being “sexually abused” the previous year, but letting the incident pass, without reference to who was responsible for this behaviour and what it entailed. The applicant states that the employer can check her file concerning this and so it is possible that the respondent is aware of the incident. However, to a reader who does not have access to the file, this description is so lacking in details as to be completely unhelpful.
5Among the documents enclosed with the Application is a Probation Order concerning Mario DeSousa, whom the applicant asserts is a friend of the respondent and a former employee. This Probation Order refers to Mr. DeSousa being convicted of “assault x 3,” but there is no clear link between this and any allegation in the Application.
6The applicant’s letter to her employer also includes a reference to “being under scrutiny from very vindictive employee’s [sic] (past and present)”, but does not describe the actual incidents of scrutiny, when they took place and the names of the employees who engaged in this scrutiny. Finally, the letter contains reference to a male co-worker “also” being “mentally and physically harassed” in 2008, but does not state what this harassment entailed. Moreover, the applicant does not describe what mental and physical harassment she experienced, and when she was subject to it.
7In my view, the few facts alleged do not provide sufficient details to allow the respondent to respond to the allegations, or the Tribunal to determine the nature of the allegations of discrimination in the Application. Within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant is directed to serve on the respondent and file with the Tribunal, an amended answer to question 8, which details the facts which support her claim of discrimination.
8In particular, with respect to each allegation in her Application, the applicant should provide details with respect to:
a. What happened?
b. When did each event alleged happen?
c. Who was involved?
d. Why what happened amounts to a violation of the Code by the respondent?
9Once the amended Application is served on the respondent, the respondent shall have 20 days to file a Response, as per his request.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of November, 2010
“Signed By”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair