Sarah Filice v. Sodexo Canada Ltd., 2016 HRTO 25

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sarah Filice

Applicant

-and-

Sodexo Canada Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: January 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 25

Indexed as: Filice v. Sodexo Canada Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sarah Filice, Applicant

Christine Lundy, Representative

Sodexo Canada Ltd., Respondent

Brent Foreman, Counsel

Introduction

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”). The matter is scheduled to be heard on January 15, 2016.

2The parties have served witness statements and documents they intend to rely upon on each other and filed those materials with the Tribunal.

3On December 23, 2015, the respondent filed a Form 10 seeking additional materials from the applicant such as curriculum vitae for the applicant’s physician, treating physiotherapist and more detailed witness statements for all proposed witnesses.

4On January 4, 2016, the applicant filed a Form 11 in which she argued that the witness statements provided were sufficient to satisfy the requirements under Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Form 11 was silent on the issue of the curriculum vitae of the applicants treating physician and physiotherapist.

5Having reviewed the materials provided, I direct that the applicant provide the respondent and file the following material immediately, but in any event no later than January 11, 2016:

a) The witness statement provided for the applicant indicates that she will limit her evidence to the contents of the Application and Reply documents. If the applicant intends to provide any additional detail, she is directed to provide such details in an amended witness statement;

b) Ms. Bartman’s witness statement indicates that she will give evidence about unspecified “supervisors and managers” causing the applicant to “shake and cry” by making “derogatory comments and shouting”. Additional detail must be provided concerning the particulars of the incidents, such as when they occurred, who was involved and what was said in an amended witness statement;

c) Ms. Robson is expected to provide information about “options that would have been available for accommodations that did not exceed (the applicant’s) restrictions”. An amended witness statement must be filed with the particulars of what those options are.

6As the applicant does not take any position with respect to the request for production of the curriculum vitae for Brent Lammer and Dr. Joseph Fallatta, and given that the applicant has not asserted that the material is not arguably relevant, I order that the applicant provide copies of the two curriculum vitae to the respondent by January 11, 2016.

7Following receipt of the applicant’s amended witness statements and the curriculum vitae as ordered, the respondent may serve on the applicant, and file with the Tribunal, any additional documents it intends to rely upon and any additional or amended witness statements by January 14, 2016. The respondent is directed to bring a hard copy of any additional documents filed to the hearing scheduled for January15, 2016.

8This matter has been scheduled for one day of hearing. The respondent need not have its witnesses in attendance, given that, in addition to her own testimony, the applicant proposes calling six witnesses.