Herve Belso v. The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 626

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Herve Belso Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: March 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 626 Indexed as: Belso v. Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and marital status. In a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 757, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as against 13 additional respondents and declined a deferral request by the applicant.

2On January 5, 2010, the Tribunal issued a “Confirmation of Hearing” Notice to the parties, setting this matter down for a one-day hearing to be held on May 6, 2010. The Notice outlined important rules and a timeline for the exchange of documents, most notably the requirement contained in Rule 16 that the parties produce a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession within 21 days of the Confirmation of Hearing. Neither party has produced a list or any documents.

3On January 26, 2010, the respondent filed a Form 10 Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient particulars capable of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. The applicant had until February 9, 2010, to respond to the Request but failed to do so.

4The Tribunal will dismiss an Application without an oral hearing when it is plain and obvious that it does not have jurisdiction (Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381; Bisbee v. Hudson’s Bay Trading Company, 2009 HRTO 1284; Morin c. Alliance de la fonction publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58). However, the Tribunal may not finally dispose of an application that is within its jurisdiction without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

5It is not plain and obvious at this preliminary juncture that the allegations contained in the Application should be dismissed. The matter will proceed to a hearing where, upon the conclusion of the applicant’s evidence, the respondent may renew its request.

6The Application contains broad and sweeping allegations against an array of individuals and organizations, of which all but one have been removed from these proceedings. As a result of that previous Interim Decision dismissing the Application as against 13 of the 14 respondents, it is unclear which allegations relate specifically to the actions of the remaining named respondent (or its agents or employees).

7The applicant bears the onus of clearly pleading his case and providing a basis on which a finding of discrimination can be made. Rule 5.7 provides that a possible consequence for a party which does not set out specific facts in its application or response is that the Tribunal may not allow the party to introduce evidence with respect to those facts. It reads as follows:

Where a party seeks to present evidence or make submissions with respect to a fact or issue that was not raised in the Application, Response, Reply, or in the materials filed under Rule 17.2 or 18.2, the Tribunal may refuse to allow the party to present evidence or make submissions about the fact or issue unless satisfied that there would be no substantial prejudice and no undue delay in the proceedings.

8The obligation to plead facts with sufficient particularity is to allow the opposing party to challenge and respond to the evidence with allegations and evidence of their own. Where it is impossible to ascertain the specifics of the facts being alleged, such as date, time, place, and persons involved, the Tribunal will likely find that the allegations lack sufficient particularity.

9The applicant should be aware that he may be prevented from relying on facts or introducing evidence about allegations that have been pleaded with insufficient particularity. He must produce a summary of specific allegations—including date, time, place and names—against the respondent that support a finding that the Code was breached. Any disputes about the quality and sufficiency of particulars may be addressed at the hearing.

ORDER

10The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondent’s request for dismissal is denied.

b. The applicant shall produce particulars in accordance with this Interim Decision by April 5, 2010.

c. The parties are reminded of their disclosure obligations pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules.