Murphy v. Pino’s Get Fresh Inc., 2013 HRTO 956

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shelley Murphy

Applicant

-and-

Pino’s Get Fresh Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ruth Carey

Date: May 30, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 956

Indexed as: Murphy v. Pino’s Get Fresh Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shelley Murphy, Applicant

Jamie McGinnis, 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 disability.

2The respondent has filed a Response denying the allegations in the Application. This Application is scheduled for hearing on June 12, 13, and 14, 2013 in Sault Ste. Marie.

3This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) filed on May 13, 2013. The RFOP seeks an order compelling the respondents to provide more detailed witness statements for two of its proposed witnesses, Ben Pino and Pam McKan.

4The respondent has not filed a response to the RFOP.

5In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 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.

6Having reviewed the witness statements filed by the respondent for Ben Pino and Pam McKan, I find that they lack particularity. It is not sufficient to set out the general area about which a witness intends to testify; particulars as to what the witness is actually going to say are required.

ORDER

7The Tribunal orders the respondent, by no later than June 7, 2013, to deliver to the applicant and to file with the Tribunal detailed witness statements that particularize and identify the proposed evidence of Ben Pino and Pam McKan.

8If the respondent does not comply, the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, including not permitting the respondent to call the witnesses at the hearing.