Sills v. Kimco Steel Sales Limited, 2016 HRTO 423

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Char-Lee Sills Applicant

-and-

Kimco Steel Sales Limited Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: April 5, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 423 Indexed as: Sills v. Kimco Steel Sales Limited

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that she was discriminated against because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Specifically, the applicant alleged that she was subject to sexual harassment and sexual solicitations by employees of the respondent.

2Prior to filing its Response, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). In the RFOP, the respondent requested particulars regarding the names of certain members of management referred to in the Application and certain female employees also referred to in the Application. The applicant did not respond to the respondent’s RFOP.

Findings

3The Tribunal has held that there must be exceptional circumstances for a respondent to raise preliminary issues prior to the filing of a Response. The issue that the Tribunal must decide is whether the Application is so deficient of information about the alleged facts and legal issues that the respondent is unable to comply with its obligation to file a Response. See Miga v. Arcelor-Mital Defasco, 2012 HRTO 619, and Airns v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, 2012 HRTO 1556.

4Having reviewed the Application, it appears that the applicant has sufficiently particularized most of her allegations. Although the applicant refers to other “girls” who were subject to harassment in the workplace, there is no indication that the applicant is seeking a remedy on behalf of anyone other than herself. I do agree that in two parts of the Application, the applicant refers to “management” without specifying who she is referring to.

5However, I find that the Application contains sufficient information to enable the respondent to prepare its Response. In its Response, the respondent may indicate any specific allegations that it is presently unable to respond to due to an alleged lack of particularity. Also, it remains open to the respondent to renew its request for particulars at a later point in the Tribunal’s process.

Order

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Respondent’s request for particulars is denied as premature; and

b. The Respondent must file a Response to the Application within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

7I am not seized of this matter.