Alexander v. Toronto District School Board, 2013 HRTO 259

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Samuel Alexander

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Tania Bloomfield, Jonathan Cohen, Davina Blenman, Zoraida Van Ael, Nina Sengupta, Christina MacDonell and Sarah Hicks

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: February 13, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 259 Indexed as: Alexander v. Toronto District School Board

APPEARANCES

Samuel Alexander, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto District School Board, Respondent Grant Bowers, Counsel

Tania Bloomfield, Jonathan Cohen, Davina Blenman, Zoraida Van Ael, Nina Sengupta, Christina MacDonall and Sarah Hicks, Respondents Susan Ursel, Counsel

1This Interim Decision deals with the Request for Order by the individual respondents, filed January 29, 2013, for further particulars. The applicant provided a response opposing the Request on February 12, 2013. The organizational respondent supports the Request.

2The Application is set for hearing on April 16, 17 and 18, 2013. The parties have exchanged arguably relevant documents pursuant to Rule 16.1. The respondents have asked for the Request to be dealt with in advance of the March 4, 2013 deadline for filing the documents and witness statements the parties intend to rely on at the hearing.

3Rule 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 organization(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant’s rights under the Code.

4The applicant appears to be under the misapprehension that the decision to accept his Application for processing means that the respondent is precluded from making a request for further particulars. While it may be true that there is sufficient information from an administrative perspective for the Tribunal to begin processing the Application, this does not mean that the adjudicator hearing the Application is precluded from ordering further particulars at the request of any party. In this case the respondents have requested further particulars in order to ensure that they have a clear understanding of the case they are required to meet in advance of filing documents and preparing witness statements.

5Having reviewed the materials filed by the parties and the previous Interim Decisions made in relation to this case which assist, in part, in clarifying the applicant’s allegations, I agree that many of the allegations are framed in very general terms and in some cases, the applicant has explicitly stated that he will provide further names and information to the Tribunal if necessary. The respondents are entitled to know, before the hearing, precisely what the applicant alleges against each individual respondent so that they may be in a position to fully respond.

6I find it appropriate to grant the order for particulars requested by the respondents. The applicant is ordered to provide particulars in accordance with paragraph 21 of the materials of the individual respondents by February 22, 2013.