Ramsumair v. CUPE Local 5001, 2011 HRTO 1514

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wendy Ramsumair

Applicant

-and-

CUPE Local 5001, Chris Marneris,

Eddie Domingues and Charles Van Vliet

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 15, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1514

Indexed as: Ramsumair v. CUPE Local 5001

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on December 11, 2009, alleging discrimination and reprisal in membership in a vocational association on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex and association with another person. In addition to naming her union local as the organizational respondent, she also named three individual respondents. The respondents filed a Joint Response.

2On April 13, 2011, a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (“the Notice”) was issued to the parties and advising that a hearing was scheduled for August 25, 2011. The Notice set out the parties obligations with respect to disclosure of documents and witnesses in accordance with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

3The Respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on July 22, 2011, requesting that the Tribunal order the applicant to provide particulars in relation to her Application. The respondents submit that the applicant has not provided any details in her Application as to which of the facts contained therein are alleged to have contravened the Code, nor has she indicated which of the respondents the allegations were against. Further, the respondents submit that although the applicant has stated that her health has been adversely affected by these alleged actions, she has not provided any medical information to support this allegation. Finally, the respondents submit that the applicant has failed to provide any justification for the financial remedy of $120,000 that she identified in her Application. The respondents submit that they require an order for the production of further and better particulars in order to allow the respondents to adequately prepare for the hearing.

4The applicant has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.

5On August 10, 2011, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal, copying the applicant’s representative, in relation to their outstanding RFOP and submitting that the applicant has failed to deliver to them her witness lists and witness statements, as required by Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules, as well as documents upon which she intends to rely at the hearing, as required by Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rule.

6The applicant has not filed any response to the respondents’ August 10, 2011 letter.

Request for Particulars

7The respondents’ request for particulars is denied. I note that the respondents were able to file a joint Response without raising this issue. I find, upon reading the Application, that there are sufficient details and particulars set out therein for the respondents to prepare themselves for the hearing.

8The applicant bears the onus of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities and if he or she cannot, then the Application will be dismissed. See Iqbal v. Inscape Corporation, 2009 HRTO 1189. If the applicant has failed, or fails, to provide medical documentation in support of her allegation that her health has been adversely affected by the respondents’ alleged actions, then the respondents can raise this issue at the hearing during their final submissions.

9In her Application, the applicant has identified $120,000 as the financial remedy that she is seeking. As noted in para. 10 of the respondents’ RFOP submissions, the applicant has identified that the $120,000 sum is based upon: “Human Rights $30,000 Dignity $30,000 Emotional $30,000 Mental $30,000”. While the breakdown may not use the precise language of remedies that have been awarded by the Tribunal under the current or previous Code as the word “damages” is missing, and may seek compensation for grounds upon which the Tribunal will not award, I find that the financial remedy is sufficiently detailed for the respondents to be able to adequately prepare for the hearing.

Disclosure Obligations

10In the Notice, as the respondents have rightly pointed out, certain disclosure obligations were identified to the parties by the Tribunal with reference to relevant sections of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The disclosure obligations pertain to documents and witnesses. See Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

11The Tribunal did receive three volumes of material from the applicant on July 22, 2011, but is unsure whether or not the actual documentation was provided to the respondents. The material received by the Tribunal did not include witness information. In a letter dated July 11, 2011, which does not appear to have been copied to the respondents, the applicant states that she delivered a revised table of contents to the respondents on July 11, 2011, having previously provided them with copies of the documentation on April 29, 2011. To the extent that the applicant has not filed her list of documents upon which she intends to rely at the hearing and copies of such documents, she is directed to immediately deliver them to the respondents and file them with the Tribunal. Further, to the extent that she has not filed her list of witnesses and a summary of their anticipated evidence, she is directed to immediately deliver them to the respondents and file them with the Tribunal.

12The applicant’s attention is drawn to Rules 5.6 and 5.7 which warn of the consequences of a party’s failure to comply with the Rules.

13The Tribunal reminds the parties that they are required to copy the other party or parties on their communications with the Tribunal.