Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 182

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sabrina Rollick Applicant

-and-

1526597 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Horton’s Store no. 253 and Kevin Matson Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: February 10, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 182
Indexed as: Rollick v. 1526597 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sabrina Rollick, Applicant

Jamie McGinnis, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is denying the applicant’s request that the respondents provide certain particulars in support of the Responses they have filed.

2The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged.

3The applicant filed two requests in October of 2014. One was to add Mr. Matson as a personal respondent. The other was for the corporate respondent to provide particulars in support of its position that there was no discrimination. The requests were not opposed. In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 1608 I granted the request to add Mr. Matson as a personal respondent. I should have also dealt with the request for particulars at the time but did not do so.

4The personal respondent has now filed a Response. Both Responses allege that the applicant:

• Failed to perform some of the essential duties of her job in 2011;
• Was absent from work without giving prior notice; and
• Was the subject of customer complaints.

5In both her October, 2014 request for particulars and in the Reply the applicant has filed as an answer to the personal respondent’s Response, the applicant asks for the following particulars:

• The circumstances surrounding her alleged failure to perform essential duties. She is asking for details about what duties she is alleged to have refused, who was involved in these discussions and what steps were taken as a result of these discussions;
• The circumstances surrounding her alleged unauthorised absences from work, including dates and times and any discussions that may have taken place with the applicant regarding these absences; and
• The circumstances surrounding the alleged customer complaints about her work, including dates, times, the nature of the complaints and any discussions that may have taken place with the applicant regarding these complaints.

6The applicant’s request for particulars is denied. While it is the case that the respondents’ Responses are lacking in detail, both Responses have sufficient information about the respondents’ respective positions to enable the applicant to reply to them. In any case, if this Application proceeds to a hearing, the parties will have to disclose to each other all arguably relevant documents. The trigger for that event is the issuing of a Notice of Hearing. At that point the extent to which the alleged incidents that the respondents rely upon were actually documented will become clear. If there is a need at that stage for the applicant to request further detail, it will be open to her to do so by renewing her request for particulars. At this point the applicant’s request is premature and is denied.

order

7The applicant’s request for particulars is denied.