Regan Rivers v. Vale Limited and Dan Pelland, 2012 HRTO 1623

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Regan Rivers

Applicant

-and-

Vale Limited and Dan Pelland

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: August 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1623

Indexed as: Rivers v. Vale Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Regan Rivers, Applicant

None

Vale Limited and Dan Pelland, Respondents

Ben Ratelband, 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 on the basis of disability and reprisal. This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the Application by the respondents (the "Request for Particulars").

BACKGROUND

2The Application arises out of the applicant's employment with the organization respondent. The applicant alleges that he endured a poisoned work environment and discriminatory actions in the workplace despite reports to progressive levels of management team members from 2006 until the end of his active employment in November 2010. The applicant also alleges that he was harassed and humiliated by "numerous threatening phone calls and registered letters" by the respondents. The applicant alleges that the culmination of discriminatory actions led to an official work refusal process. Further, the applicant alleges that he has been off work on a "medically sheltered leave" since November 2010, and to the date of filing has not had any accommodation attempts made to return him to work to the point of undue hardship.

3In the Form 1-A attached to the Application, the applicant checks off a number of boxes indicating that he experienced discrimination in his rate of pay, overtime, hours of work, holidays; in discipline; in comments, displays, jokes, harassment, or a poisoned work environment; in a requirement for accommodation for medical appointments due to disability; and in being denied necessary accommodation in the workplace.

4An "initial" Response was filed on December 7, 2011, along with the Request for Particulars. The respondent makes a detailed Request seeking particulars of the general statements of discrimination in the Application and the checked boxes in the Form 1-A footnoted to the specific statements made in the Application.

5In addition, the respondents earlier filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on October 18, 2011, seeking deferral of the Application to an appeal of a refusal of a Ministry of Labour Inspector to issue an order in respect to the alleged workplace harassment that the applicant had been subjected to (the "Request to Defer").

6The applicant filed a Reply to the Request to Defer opposing the Request citing a number of grounds including that the party appealing is the trade union (and not the applicant) and the status is "sine die" for a year (which I presume means that the matter has been adjourned sine die for a year).

7The applicant did not file a response to the Request for Particulars and the time for responding has elapsed.

8The parties proceeded to mediation on July 5, 2012, with the Requests remaining outstanding.

The Request for Particulars

9Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states:

6.2 A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and the related supplemental form(s) and Form 4 (if applicable), and must set out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of person(s) or organizations(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant's rights under the Code.

10I find that the Application is framed in very general terms which makes it difficult to discern what particular circumstances form the basis of the applicant's allegations. Specifically, the applicant does not set out the facts that form the substance of his allegations including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened and the names of the persons or organizations alleged to have violated his rights under the Code (or have been involved in the particular incidents). Further, the applicant has checked off boxes in the Form 1-A but does not include a description of how, when and by whom he was discriminated against in the boxes selected in the attached narrative.

11Having regard to the submissions filed including the absence of any objection from the applicant, I find it appropriate to grant the order for particulars requested by the respondents. The applicant is ordered to provide particulars by September 10, 2012. The respondents may file an amended response by October 10, 2012, and the applicant may file an amended Reply by October 24, 2012.

12Subject to this Interim Decision, the parties should otherwise have regard to any requirements stipulated for responses and replies set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Request to Defer

13Having regard to the passage of time since the respondents first filed their Deferral Request on October 18, 2011, should the respondents still wish the Tribunal to consider deferral, the respondents shall confirm their interest and provide an update on the status of the other proceeding at the same time that they file their amended response. The applicant may file any submissions to any renewed Request to Defer at the same time has he files an amended reply.

SUMMARY OF ORDERS

14The Tribunal orders as follows:

i. By September 10, 2012, the applicant shall provide particulars of the 21 numbered items in the Request for Particulars dated December 7, 2011;

ii. By October 10, 2012, the respondents shall file an amended response to the Application;

iii. By October 24, 2012, the applicant may file an amended reply;

iv. By October 10, 2012, the respondents shall advise the Tribunal in writing if they still wish the Tribunal to consider the Request to Defer, and if they do, provide an update of the status of the other proceeding including providing related documentation and any further submissions in support of their Request to Defer; and

v. By October 24, 2012, the applicant may file any submissions in response to the Request to Defer.

15I am not seized.