HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stacey Harrison
Applicant
-and-
Loblaw Inc., Michael Burns, Michael McInnis and Constantina Tsilimigras
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Harrison v. Loblaw
APPEARANCES
Stacey Harrison, Applicant ) Self-represented Loblaw Inc., Respondent ) John O’Reilly, Counsel Michael Burns, Respondent ) Dan Condon, Counsel Michael McInnis and ) Jeffrey Andrew, Counsel Constantina Tsilimigras, Respondents )
1The applicant filed this Application on November 18, 2009, under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal (the “current Application”). The applicant had filed a previous Application with the Tribunal (the “previous Application”), which was subsequently settled and closed.
2With respect to her reprisal claim in her current Application, the applicant is alleging that she was subject to significant verbal abuse and/or threats following the settlement of the previous Application. The particulars of these threats are set out in Schedule “A” to her Application. In addition, the current Application contains a Schedule “C,” which sets out the allegations in the applicant’s previous Application.
3Following receipt of the current Application, the respondents filed three Requests for Order During Proceedings (Form 10), asking the Tribunal to strike out Schedule “C” on the basis of s. 45.1 or on the basis that it would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process. In addition, these Requests all seek further particulars with respect to the allegations in Schedule “A.”
4A preliminary hearing was convened to deal with the respondents’ requests.
REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS
5Although the particulars set out in Schedule “A” of the current Application set out dates, times and locations for each of the allegations, the applicant has failed to specify the names of the individuals involved. At the hearing the applicant indicated that she was prepared to provide the names of the individuals, but that she had been confused about what was required. She indicated that she would require a week to put together this information.
6Accordingly, the applicant is ordered to serve on the respondents and file with the Tribunal an amended Schedule “A” by December 23, 2010. This amended schedule shall include the names of the individuals who are alleged to have engaged in the behaviour with respect to each allegation set out in Schedule “A.” The respondents will have four weeks from the receipt of this information to file amended Responses.
7The applicant also indicated that there were witnesses to this behaviour. I advised the applicant that it was not necessary to provide the names of her witnesses at this stage, but that the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure specify that this information is to be disclosed once a hearing date is scheduled. Specifically, Rule 17 provides that all parties must serve on the other parties, and file with the Tribunal, a list of witnesses, and a brief summary of the anticipated testimony of those witnesses, 45 days prior to the first day of hearing.
REQUEST TO STRIKE
8The respondents Loblaw Inc. and Michael Burns seek to strike Schedule “C” in the current Application on the basis that the applicant fully and finally resolved all of the allegations contained within that Schedule through Minutes of Settlement in the previous Application, and that to allow the applicant to proceed with them would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.
9The respondents Michael McInnis and Constantina Tsilimigras argue that Schedule “C” can be struck on the basis of s. 45.1 of the Code:
45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
10In her oral submissions, the applicant acknowledged that the allegations in Schedule “C” were the same allegations that formed the basis of the earlier Application to this Tribunal. She also acknowledged that there had been a full and final settlement of this earlier Application and that she had signed a Release to that effect.
11She clarified that she did not intend to prove the allegations set out in Schedule “C,” but included them in her current Application in order that the Tribunal would have context in which to understand her reprisal allegations. She stated that she understood that they were merely allegations, and not, in any way, proof that the conduct alleged actually happened. She was not prepared to concede that Schedule “C” should be struck because she was concerned that her current Application would be deficient if it did not contain the context in which her current allegations could be understood.
12I issued an oral ruling that Schedule “C” should be struck. The respondents have the right to rely upon the full and final Release signed by the applicant with respect to these allegations. Whatever the intentions of the applicant, as it stands now, both Schedule “A” and Schedule “C” form the allegations which the respondents are called upon to answer. Indeed, in answer to question 8 of her current Application, the applicant only refers to Schedule “C.”
13The applicant stated that the reference to Schedule “C” in question 8 of her Form 1 was the result of her confusion. Given that the applicant is self-represented, this confusion is understandable. As a housekeeping matter, the current Application should be amended so that the reference to Schedule “C” in answer to question 8 is struck and replaced with Schedule “A.”
14The parties briefly addressed the issue of what information concerning the applicant’s previous Application could be properly put into evidence. In the event that the parties are not able to reach agreement on this issue, this is something properly determined by the vice-chair or member assigned to hear the merits of this Application.
15I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 17^th^ day of December, 2010.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair