Ruth Echevarria v. Whole Foods Market Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 892

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Ruth Echevarria Applicant

-and-

Whole Foods Market Canada Inc., Chris Goodfellow and Lisa Slater Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eli Fellman Date: July 6, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 892 Indexed as: Echevarria v. Whole Foods Market Canada Inc.

Written Submissions

Ruth Echevarria, Applicant Cecil Norman, Representative

Whole Foods Market Canada Inc., Michael Bashaw, Natalie Broadfield, Chris Goodfellow and Lisa Slater, Respondents Lia Chiarotto, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2This decision addresses the respondents' request for an order removing two of the four personal respondents, Michael Bashaw and Natalie Broadfield, as parties to the Application and an order for particulars with regard to various allegations in the Application.

3The applicant consented to the request to remove the two personal respondents. These two personal respondents have therefore been removed as parties and the style of cause has been amended accordingly.

4The applicant's response failed to address the request for particulars.

5The request for particulars is reasonable in the circumstances as the Application contains a number of relatively general allegations that lack details or specificity, such as what exactly was said or done and when and where the event(s) took place. The respondents are entitled to further details so that they can fully understand the allegations against them and have an opportunity to provide relevant evidence during the hearing addressing the allegations.

6Therefore, the applicant is directed to provide the respondents and the Tribunal with particulars respecting the following allegations contained in the Application within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction:

a. Allegation in paragraph 10 that the applicant was never allowed any proper vacation or full lunch time;

b. Allegations in paragraphs 12 and 15 that personal respondents shouted at her, isolated her, were abrupt, dismissive and condescending towards her;

c. Allegation in paragraph 13 that the applicant experienced numerous incidents of discrimination, bullying and harassment between October 28, 2013 and her termination in February 2014;

d. Allegation in paragraph 16 that the personal respondents created a "poisoned work environment" for the applicant after she stated she did not intend to retire;

e. Allegations in paragraphs 18 and 19 that the personal respondents were consistently adversarial and antagonistic towards the applicant, humiliated her in the presence of co-workers because her English was not clear and made her feel uncomfortable because of her age and language;

f. Allegation in paragraph 20 that the personal respondents intensified their harassment of the applicant looking for just cause for termination; and

g. Allegation in paragraph 23 that the personal respondents were watching the applicant closely in the few weeks leading up to her termination looking for just cause for termination.

7I am not seized of this matter.