Qiting Huang v. High Life Heating, Air Conditioning & Security Inc. and Yorktech Supply Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1802

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Qiting Huang

Applicant

-and-

High Life Heating, Air Conditioning & Security Inc. and Yorktech Supply Ltd.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: October 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1802 Indexed as: Huang v. High Life Heating, Air Conditioning & Security Inc.

APPEARANCES

Qiting Huang, Applicant

Kate Sellar, Counsel

High Life Heating, Air Conditioning & Security Inc. and Yorktech Supply Ltd., Respondents

Ken MacDonald, 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”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex (pregnancy). This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant.

2On September 17, 2013, the respondents filed the documents they intend to rely upon and a witness list and a witness statement, pursuant to Rules 16.2, 16.3, 17.1 and 17.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”). These documents indicate that the respondents intend to call one witness and that the witness’ expected evidence is set out in the respondents’ Response. On September 19, 2013, the applicant filed a letter with the Tribunal, which the Tribunal takes to be a Request for an Order During Proceeding (the “Request”). The applicant requested an order requiring the respondents to file and deliver a detailed witness statement, citing C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 426. The applicant submitted that the respondents appeared to be relying on their Response rather than filing a witness statement under Rule 17. The applicant submitted that witness statements and pleading serve distinct purposes and that the applicant is entitled to a detailed account of the respondents’ witness’ expected evidence in addition to the Response. The applicant further submitted that the Response does not address specific facts set out in the Application that ought to be addressed in a witness statement.

3The respondents responded by e-mail message dated September 19, 2013. The respondents noted that Notice of Hearing specifically advised the parties that “If the witness’ evidence is fully set out in the application or response, the witness statement can simply confirm this”. The respondents also submitted that the applicant did not indicate which facts set out in the Application are not addressed in the respondents’ Response / witness statement.

Decision

4In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., supra, the Tribunal explained its expectations regarding, amongst other things, witness statements, at paragraph. 7:

The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.

[My emphasis]

5Consistent with this approach, the Tribunal advises parties in the Notice of Hearing that they may confirm that their evidence is contained in the application or response. Where an application or response lacks sufficient detail, it may be appropriate to order a detailed witness statement. In this Application, the applicant alleges the respondents terminated her employment after she informed them that she was pregnant. The respondents deny the allegation and the Response provides the respondents’ explanation for why they dismissed the applicant. In my view, the Response is reasonably detailed and the applicant did not indicate how the Response does not address the applicant’s allegations. In these circumstances, there is no basis on which to require the respondents to file a witness statement in addition to their Response.

6The Request is denied.