Wang v. Canadore College, 2013 HRTO 1391

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Hailan Wang Applicant

-and-

Canadore College of Applied Arts and Technology Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: August 13, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1391 Indexed as: Wang v. Canadore College

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hailan Wang, Applicant Ron Franklin, Counsel

Canadore College of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent Catherine L. Peters, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 30, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin. On February 28, 2013, the Tribunal sent the parties notice of the hearing which has been scheduled for September 30, October 1 and 2, 2013.

2On May 13, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing. The applicant opposes it.

ORDER

3The respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing is denied, without reasons, in accordance with Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice.

REMINDER

4The parties are reminded of their obligations laid out in the Notice of Rescheduled Hearing as according to Rules 16 and 17, namely, to file and serve on each other the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing as well as a witness list and summaries of what each witness will say. August 16, 2013 was specified in the Notice of Hearing as the date by which the parties must comply with the filing requirement; however, the parties may have an additional seven (7) days, so that the date to comply with the filing requirements is now August 23, 2013.

5Normally, summaries of what witnesses are expected to say need not be very detailed, but I note that the Application lacks important information which will be required to assess what allegations are within time as allegations on their own, and which might merely be context or evidence that the lay off was discriminatory as alleged by the applicant. The summary of the applicant’s intended testimony should therefore include details, and, in particular, describe in detail: 1) each and every professional development opportunity she was denied, including conferences and their dates; 2) all dates that she allegedly worked overtime and was not paid, indicating whether she sought approval for overtime and what reasons for any denial was provided; and 3) all instances of alleged harassment, including the approximate dates of when they occurred.

DIRECTION

6The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings for the production of documents. With the exception of two documents now provided by the respondent, the respondent opposes the Request. Given that the parties have not yet filed with the Tribunal their documents upon which they intend to rely, the production Request will not be decided at this time.

7The Tribunal shall immediately schedule a conference call for the purposes of case management and to canvas the possibility of mediation-adjudication pursuant to Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules. Attached to this Interim Decision is a Mediation/Adjudication Agreement form that the parties should consider completing and filing prior to the conference call.