Armstrong v. Royal Host Limited Partnership, 2014 HRTO 922

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chantel Armstrong Applicant

-and-

Royal Host Limited Partnership, by its General Partner, Royal Host Gp Inc. c.o.b. as Travelodge Ottawa Hotel and Conference Centre Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: June 23, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 922 Indexed as: Armstrong v. Royal Host Limited Partnership

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Chantel Armstrong, Applicant Mitchell Rowe, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is granting the applicant’s request for an order for the production of documents. It also provides direction to the parties regarding the hearing of this Application which is scheduled to begin on July 28, 2014.

2This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex and sexual solicitation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that while working for the respondent she was sexually harassed by a fellow employee, that the respondent was made aware of this and took no action to stop it, and that a consequence of the harassment was that she was unable to continue working for the respondent. The respondent denies both that the harassment occurred and that it was made aware of any allegations of harassment during and after its alleged occurrence.

3Central to the applicant’s allegations is that she sought the assistance of her union and that her union representative, Gloria Borts, had knowledge of and took notes of her allegations. Counsel for the applicant has sought production of the representative’s notes as well as the applicant’s file with the union’s disability insurance carrier. A written response from the union promised its assistance, but to date the documents have not been produced. This is why the applicant has made her request for production. The respondent has not taken a position on this request.

4The Tribunal will order production of arguably relevant documents. Here the documents in question easily meet the test of arguable relevance. If the documents exist, they may be determinative of central facts in issue in this Application, namely what the applicant told to whom and when did she tell it. This is true of both the notes of the union representative as well as any documents relating to a claim for disability benefits.

5The applicant’s request is granted and the Hospitality and Service Trades Union, Local 261 and Gloria Borts are directed to provide to applicant’s counsel all documents in their possession that are relevant to the allegations in this Application. In addition, the Hospitality and Service Trades Union, Local 261 and Lee Power and Associates are directed to provide to applicant’s counsel all documents in their possession that are relevant to any claim the applicant may have initiated for benefits from 2012 to the present.

6The parties have provided each other and the Tribunal with the documents they intend to introduce at the hearing, along with witness lists and witness statements. With the exception of the witness statement provided by Daniella Girolamo, the statements of the respondent’s witnesses are cursory and of a general nature. With the exception of the information provided by the applicant in her Application and which she relies on to disclose her anticipated evidence, the witness statements of the applicant are even less informative.

7The purpose of witness statements is to allow parties and the Tribunal to prepare for the hearing. Adequately informative witness statements can also facilitate settlement and avoid the need for a hearing altogether. Ideally witness statements are detailed enough to be adopted as evidence in chief. At a minimum they should touch on all the facts and incidents that are central to the allegations in dispute. Of course, if the witnesses really have nothing more to say than what is already in their statements then they cannot provide any more detail.

8However, the parties in this Application should be advised that if they choose not to submit more detailed statements, then the Tribunal may decide that the evidence of these witnesses is to be limited to the specific facts and incidents that they have disclosed in the statements that have been filed with the Tribunal and they will not be allowed to give evidence about facts and incidents that they could and should have identified beforehand.

9Revised witness statements would be welcome, but the parties must provide them to each other and the Tribunal within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

10Finally, I draw the parties’ attention to the Tribunal’s mediation/adjudication process provided for under Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. If the parties are interested in pursuing this option as the first order of business on July 28, they are requested to let each other and the Registrar know by email in advance of the hearing.

order

11The applicant’s request is granted. Within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision the Hospitality and Service Trades Union, Local 261 and Gloria Borts are to provide to applicant’s counsel all documents in their possession that are relevant to the allegations in this Application. Within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision the Hospitality and Service Trades Union, Local 261 and Lee Power and Associates are directed to provide to applicant’s counsel all documents in their possession that are relevant to any claim the applicant may have initiated for benefits from 2012 to the present.

12If the parties are going to provide each other and the Tribunal with revised witness statements, they are to do so within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.