HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kenneth Chang
Applicant
-and-
Regis Holdings (Canada) Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Chang v. Regis Holdings
1The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and sex.
2On February 28, 2011 the respondent filed a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings requesting removal of a personal respondent and particulars from the applicant. In an Interim Decision dated March 21, 2011, 2011 HRTO 558, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondent and directed the applicant to provide the names of female haircutters who allegedly received complaints in order for the respondent to be able to respond to the allegations of differential treatment and to prepare its case. The applicant has not provided these particulars, as directed.
3The 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.
4The 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.
5The 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. The applicant is again directed to provide the names of female haircutters who allegedly received complaints in order for the respondent to be able to respond to the allegations of differential treatment and to prepare its case.
ORDER
10The Tribunal orders as follows:
- The applicant shall produce particulars in accordance with this Interim Decision by July 13, 2011
Dated at Toronto, this 23^rd^ day of June, 2011.
“Signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair