Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Cecilia Anne Airns
Applicant
-and-
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Airns v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, Respondent
M. Fricot, 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 with respect to employment because of age, ancestry, disability, family status, race and reprisal.
2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent`s Request for production of documents and particulars filed on July 24, 2012.
3The applicant has not responded to the respondents Request.
4In the Request the respondent seeks that the applicant clarify a number of statements in the Application including providing particulars of alleged incidents of harassment and discrimination that she has been allegedly subjected to by unidentified employees. The applicant has also indicated in the Application that she will provide more information to her “Case Worker” about other incidents of harassment and discrimination. The respondent has taken the position that it cannot meaningfully provide a Response in the absence of these particulars.
5The respondent also seeks that the Tribunal issue an order requiring the production of documents, including emails, and letters that the applicant has in her possession.
Decision
6The Tribunal has found in previous cases that there must be exceptional circumstances for a respondent to raise preliminary issues prior to the filing of a response. The issue that the Tribunal must decide is whether the Application is so deficient of information about the alleged facts and legal issues that the respondent is unable to comply with its obligation to file a Response. See: Miga v. Arcelor-Mital Defasco, 2012 HRTO 619.
7I have reviewed the Application and it appears that the applicant is raising issues with respect to her reintegration in the workplace after a medical leave of absence and allegations of harassment and being treated differently as a manager. Though, the applicant has not identified all of the particulars that she relies upon there is sufficient information in the Application, to permit the respondent to identify the alleged facts and legal issues.
8I conclude that, for the purposes of this preliminary stage of the proceeding, the Application contains sufficient information to enable the respondent to prepare its Response and, within its Response, to address certain claims and indicate which specific allegations they are unable to accept or refute because of alleged lack of particularity. It remains open to the respondent to renew its request for particulars at a later point in the process. Consequently, the Tribunal denies the respondents’ Request for an order requiring particulars prior to the filing of the Response.
9With respect to the Request for production I find that this is premature. Rule 16 of the Tribunal`s Rules provide for the disclosure of arguably relevant documents, which are required within 21 days of the issuance of a Notice of Hearing. The Tribunal will only require parties to engage in early production of documents in exceptional circumstances. This includes, that the respondent is unable to file a response without access to the documents sought. There is nothing exceptional in circumstances which justify early production. The Request for production is denied as premature.
Order
10The Tribunal orders:
a. The Respondents Request for particulars and production is denied;
b. The Respondent must file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of August, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair