HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joseph Spadafora Applicant
-and-
Aditya Birla Minacs, Anil Bhalla, Keith Callahan, Mark Harrietha and Peter Sheppard Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Decision Date: May 17, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1003 Indexed as: Spadafora v. Aditya Birla Minacs
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Aditya Birla Minacs, Anil Bhalla, Keith Callahan, Mark Harrietha and Peter Shepard, Respondents John Saunders, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, association with a person based on a Code-related ground and reprisal. The respondents have filed a detailed Response denying the allegations in the Application. This matter is scheduled for hearing in St. Catharines on July 9, 10 and 11, 2012.
2This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order filed on September 10, 2010 by the respondents to remove the individual respondents and a second Request for Order filed by the respondents on June 23, 2011 for particulars and production of documents. The applicant has never responded nor filed any submissions with respect to these two Requests for Order.
Request for Particulars and Removal of Personal respondents
3The respondents submit that the Application filed by the applicant lacks particulars of any alleged discriminatory conduct and that the applicant should provide details of these allegations.
4Having reviewed the Application the Tribunal agrees that it is appropriate for the applicant to provide particulars of his allegations. The Tribunal finds that the particulars sought by the respondents are reasonably necessary to their ability to respond to the Application at the hearing.
5Further, given the lengthy and detailed Response filed by the respondents, it is appropriate to direct the applicant to file a Reply in this case in advance of the hearing.
6Once the Tribunal is in receipt of the particulars and the Reply, it will determine whether it is appropriate to remove any of the individual respondents.
Request for Production
7The Request for Production was received on June 23, 2011 almost six months prior to the Notice of Hearing which was sent to the parties on January 6, 2012. Pursuant to the Notice of Hearing parties had to exchange all arguably relevant documents by January 27, 2012.
8There is no information in the file confirming that either party has complied with this obligation and whether production of arguably relevant documents is still an issue in dispute.
Order
9The Tribunal therefore Orders the following:
Within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision the applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal the following; a. particulars of the facts that he relies on in support of his Application, including; i. How each of the respondents alleged infringed his rights under the Code; ii. Specifics, of the alleged sexual comments and/or remarks that were made including, by who and to whom these comments were allegedly made and the dates on which they were made; and iii. Specifics, of the applicant’s alleged complaints to management. b. A Reply which addresses the issues raised in the respondent’s Response; c. Any submissions with respect to the removal of the individual respondents; and d. Confirmation that the applicant has delivered to the respondents all arguably relevant documents.
Within 10 days of this Interim Decision the respondents must deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal; a. Confirmation that they have delivered all arguably relevant documents to the applicant; and b. Submissions on whether it is still seeking production of documents from the applicant or whether they have received all arguably relevant documents.
10If the applicant does not comply with the directions as set out in this Interim Decision then this Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of May, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair