Savage v. London & Middlesex Housing Corporation, 2015 HRTO 617

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Savage

Applicant

-and-

London & Middlesex Housing Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: May 12, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 617

Indexed as: Savage v. London & Middlesex Housing Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

London & Middlesex Housing Corporation, Respondent

Mark Melchers, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges reprisal and discrimination with respect to housing because of race, disability, creed, sex, marital status and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

request for an order during proceedings

2The respondent filed an April 7, 2015 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting that the applicant file particulars of his claims.

3The respondent submits that the applicant has not provided sufficient particulars about what, when and where the alleged discriminatory incidents happened, and who allegedly violated the applicant’s rights under the Code.

4The respondent alleges it cannot prepare a proper defence if it does not get more particulars.

5Specifically, the respondent requests the following:

a. The names of the respondent’s representatives to whom the applicant made requests for a larger apartment; how and when the requests were made; and who refused the requests and when.

b. To whom the applicant made requests for corrective work in his apartment since 2005; when he made the requests; what work he requested; who allegedly refused the requests; and how this relates to a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code;

c. What verbal threats the respondent’s representatives allegedly made to the applicant (the applicant listed one alleged threat), who made the threats; and when and where the threats were made;

d. What respondent’s representatives told the applicant they would not comply with his disabilities because he is a male of North American descent; who allegedly refused to comply with the applicant’s disabilities and when; and where and how the alleged refusals to comply with the applicant’s disabilities were made;

e. The names of the respondent’s representatives who allegedly refused to fix the applicant’s toilet; when these representatives or this representative looked at the toilet; and how this relates to a violation of the applicant’s rights under the Code;

f. Details of the letters the applicant alleges he sent to “management” to complain about the alleged harassment including to whom he complained and when.

6The applicant did not file a response to the respondent’s RFOP.

decision

Particulars of Allegations

7The Application form instructs applicants to “describe each event” they believe was discriminatory, including “what happened, who was involved, when it happened (day, month, year) and where it happened”. The form instructs applicants to be as complete and accurate as possible and to be sure to “give details of every incident of discrimination you want to raise in the hearing”. It is not sufficient for the applicant to “summarize” allegations without providing the necessary particulars, nor is it sufficient for the applicant to assert that some further particulars will become apparent with documentation to be provided by way of disclosure prior to the hearing.

8There are a number of what appear to be allegations of discrimination for which the applicant has not provided the particulars required.

9The applicant vaguely alleges that the discrimination happened from 2005 to today, but provides few particulars of when any of the alleged events occurred, who was involved, where the events occurred and how they occurred.

10The only specific allegations the applicant makes are:

1. his toilet did not work up to February, 2014 and he had to have someone else fix it “off the books”;

2. Amanda David told him in January, 2012 that the broken toilet was his problem and refused to issue a work order; and

3. A bat came through the ceiling in the bathroom in September, 2013.

11The applicant in this case has not set out sufficiently the facts with respect to his allegations and in such a case an order for particulars is appropriate. See, e.g. Rivers v. Vale, 2012 HRTO 1623.

12The applicant is directed to provide further particulars as set out in paragraph 5(a) – (f), above within 7 days of this Interim Decision.

13The respondent will provide any amended Response it wishes to provide with respect to these particularized allegations within 7 days of receipt of the applicant’s particularized allegations.

Pre-hearing Disclosure

14The Notice of Hearing set out timelines for the parties to provide to each other and to the Tribunal:

1. a list of the witnesses each of them intends to call at the hearing of the Application;

2. witness statements describing what the witnesses will say when they testify; and

3. copies of the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing.

15The parties were to deliver their arguably relevant documents to each other by January 14, 2015.

16The parties were to deliver their documents for use at the hearing, their list of witnesses and their witness statements to each other and the Tribunal by June 1, 2015.

17Because of the order for the applicant to provide particulars of his allegations, the timelines for providing documents is amended, as set out in paragraphs 18(c) and (d), below.

order

18The Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. The applicant shall deliver to the respondent and to the Tribunal further particulars of his allegations as set out in paragraph 5(a) – (f), above, by no later than May 22, 2015;

b. The respondent shall deliver to the respondent, and file with the Tribunal along with a Form 23 Statement of Delivery evidencing delivery on the applicant, any amended Response it wishes to provide with respect to the above-noted particularized allegations within 14 days of its receipt of those particularized allegations;

c. The applicant and the respondent shall deliver to each other their arguably relevant documents and file with the Tribunal a Form 23 Statement of Delivery evidencing delivery of same by no later than June 12, 2015; and

d. The applicant and the respondent shall deliver to each other and to the Tribunal the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing by no later than June 19, 2015 and shall file with the Tribunal a Form 23 Statement of Delivery, evidencing delivery of the documents on each other.

e. If the applicant does not provide to the respondent and to the Tribunal the particulars of his allegations as set out in paragraph 18(a), above, by May 22, 2015, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

f. If the applicant does not communicate with the Tribunal at all by May 22, 2015, his case may be dismissed as abandoned.