HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stanley Miga
Applicant
-and-
Arcelor-Mital Dofasco
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Miga v. Arcelor-Mital Dofasco
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Arcelor-Mital Dofasco, Respondent ) Kathryn Bird, Counsel
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 July 15, 2011.
2The applicant alleges that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment at work. The applicant’s narrative describes numerous incidents of alleged mistreatment over the course of five years involving various unnamed co-workers. The applicant’s narrative identifies several supervisors and representatives of human resources to whom the applicant allegedly communicated or corresponded with about his concerns.
3On August 31, 2011, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking the Tribunal to require the applicant to further particularize the allegations in the Application. The respondent contends that it is unable to file a Response (Form 2) because the applicant has not provided sufficient specificity of his allegations. The respondent alleges that there are numerous instances where it requires greater particulars about the dates and details of incidents and the identities of the individuals alleged to have been involved in the circumstances.
4The applicant did not respond to the respondent’s Request for particulars.
DECISION
5The purpose of particulars is to alert responding parties and the Tribunal as to what alleged facts and legal issues give rise to a breach of the Code. The issue underlying the respondent’s Request is whether or not 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.
6The Tribunal has repeatedly stated that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal generally requires respondents to file a completed response prior to raising preliminary issues, such as requests for particulars or disclosure. See Glynn v. Lowe’s Companies Canada, 2009 HRTO 1180; Ugolini v. Salvation Army Barrie, 2009 HRTO 1801; Asefa v. Can-Am Logistics, 2010 HRTO 1531; and Rose v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1784.
7I do not agree with the respondent that the content of this Application is so inadequate that it is precluded from knowing the general case to which it has to respond. Based on my review of the Application, I do not accept the respondent’s claim that the Application is so vague or lacking in sufficient clarity that the respondent is prevented from responding to many of the applicant's allegations.
8I note that the Application narrative identifies the department where the applicant alleges that he experienced a poisoned work environment, the time period he worked in that department, the names of several co-workers who the applicant believes were aware of the circumstances, the identity of five supervisory personnel the applicant allegedly directly spoke with and/or wrote to about his concerns of harassment, and the identity of three human resources representatives the applicant allegedly approached for assistance. While the applicant’s narrative does not identify which individuals fostered the alleged poisoned work environment or the exact dates of the incidents, the narrative does provide details of various occurrences and describes which of those occurrences were raised with management.
9Given the information provided in Form 1, Form 1A, and the narrative, and considering the allegation that some of the harassment was anonymous, I do not accept that the Application is so lacking in particularity that the respondent is unable to file a Response. The respondent has not persuaded me that it does not have enough information through the Application to address the applicant’s allegations. As previously noted, the Application alleges that the respondent was aware of various occurrences because the applicant allegedly apprised supervisory and human resources personnel of his concerns. Presumably, the respondent has information at its disposal through its supervisory and human resources representatives identified in the Application as having knowledge of the applicant’s complaints, sufficient for the respondent to possibly accept, deny, or clarify some of the applicant’s allegations. As such, this case does not demonstrate the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify an order for particulars in advance to respondent filing a Response.
10I find that, for the purposes of this early stage of the proceeding, the Application contains adequate details to enable the respondent to compile a Response and, within the Response, to indicate which specific allegations it is unable to address because of alleged lack of particularity. It remains open to the respondent to renew its request for particulars at a later stage. Consequently, the Tribunal denies the respondent’s Request for particulars at this stage of the proceedings.
ORDER
11The respondent’s Request for particulars is denied. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent is required to file a Response (Form 2).
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”___________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair