HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Tresha Wallace-Dunkley
Applicant
-and-
Dr. Bernstein Diet and Health Clinic and Michael McGuire
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: June 29, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 871 Indexed as: Wallace-Dunkley v. Dr. Bernstein Diet and Health Clinic
1This 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”).
2The respondents have not yet filed a Response (Form 2) but instead have filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”). In their Request the respondents seek the following:
a. An extension of time to file a Response (Form 2).
b. An Order directing the applicant to particularize her Application.
c. An Order removing the personal respondent.
3The applicant consents to the Request for an extension of time to file a Response and opposes the request to remove the personal respondent. The applicant does not appear to address the request for particulars.
4The Request is granted in part.
The Request for Particulars:
5Other than in describing a telephone conversation which allegedly lead to the applicant’s dismissal from employment the Application is entirely devoid of particulars of what is described in general terms as routine harassment and bullying of the applicant. So for example in paragraph 5 of her narrative the applicant states that throughout her employment she was subject to discrimination, harassment and abuse. The applicant alleges that she was yelled at and screamed at. It is not said when these alleged events occurred. Indeed the only event that is described in any detail is a telephone conversation on or about March 27, 2015 in which some of these same kinds of allegations are described leaving the impression that it is this one incident that is relied on by the applicant. If the applicant intends to rely on any further allegations beyond the March 27, 2015 telephone conversation she must provide details of what other incidents of discrimination she is relying on In any case, given the narrative, I agree with the respondents that it is currently impossible to provide a meaningful response to this Application.
Request for an Extension of Time
6It follows that from the determination above that the respondents are entitled to time to respond to the applicant’s allegations once they have been made aware of what they are. The respondents will deliver and file its Response (Form 2) 35 days after it receives the applicant’s particularized Application.
The Request to Remove the Personal Respondent
7The respondents seeks the removal of the personal respondent. The applicant has opposed this aspect of the Request and asserts that the personal respondent is central to the applicant’s allegations. That position is impossible to assess at this stage. If after the applicant provides her particularized Application the respondents may renew this aspect of the Request.
8There is reference in the materials to Dr. Bernstein being a respondent. According to the Tribunal’s records he or she is not a respondent to this Application.
Order
9The Tribunal makes the following Directions:
a. that the applicant provide full particulars of her broad and general allegations contained in the narrative of her Application. Without limiting the generality of this Direction the applicant will provide particulars including the who, what, when and where for each of her general assertions in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 26 in particular. The applicant will provide these particulars within 21 days of the date of this Direction.
b. The respondents will deliver and file their Response within 35 days of receiving the applicant’s revised Application.
c. The request to remove the personal respondent is denied at this stage. If after the applicant provides a particularized Application the respondents may renew this aspect of the Request.
10I am not seized
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of June, 2015.
“signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair