HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stacey Harrison
Applicant
-and-
Loblaws Inc., Michael Burns, Michael McInnis and Constantina Tsilimigras
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Harrison v. Loblaws
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 fled 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. The applicant intends to rely on, and seeks relief for, the allegations in both Schedules “A” and “C.”
3Following receipt of the Application, the four respondents filed three Requests for Order During Proceedings (Form 10), asking that the Tribunal 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.”
REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS
4Although the particulars set out in Schedule “A” set out dates, times and locations for each of the allegations, the applicant has failed to specify the names of the individuals involved. The applicant is directed to serve on the respondents and file with the Tribunal an amended Schedule “A” containing the missing information within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision. The respondents will have two weeks from the receipt of this information to file amended Responses.
5In the event that the applicant does not comply with this order, the Tribunal will consider this issue at the same time as it deals with the request to strike in the teleconference set out below.
REQUEST TO STRIKE
6The respondents Loblaws Inc. and Michael Burns seek to strike Schedule “C” 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.
7The 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.
8It is appropriate for the Tribunal to determine, as a preliminary matter, the following issues:
- Whether to proceed on the allegations in Schedule “C” would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process; and
- Whether another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of that portion of the Application set out in Schedule “C” (s. 45.1).
9Section 43(2) of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application within its jurisdiction without affording the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions. Accordingly, the Registrar will schedule a one hour teleconference to consider the above issues.
10If a party intends to rely upon any documents not already included in the Tribunal’s file, it shall deliver such materials to the other parties and file them with the Tribunal no later than 14 days before the scheduled teleconference. Any case law relied upon by the parties, shall be delivered to the other parties seven days before the scheduled hearing.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 9^th^ day of April, 2010.
“Signed By”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair```