HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Linda Weldon
Applicant
-and-
Horse Palace Riding Academy Inc., Sunnybrook Stables Ltd., Walter Shanley, and Jacqueline Hinks-Shanly
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Weldon v. Horse Palace Riding Academy Inc.
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, sex and sexual solicitation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The Application was filed on April 29, 2016, and was delivered to the respondents on May 9, 2016.
3On June 15, 2016, the respondents requested an extension of time to file a Response to June 28, 2016.
4On June 29, 2016, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking an order requiring the applicant to provide further particulars of her allegations prior to the respondent being required to file a Response (Form 2).
5The applicant has not yet responded to the Request.
6The Request is denied.
7The Tribunal has repeatedly held that absent exceptional circumstances it will generally require respondents to file a complete Response prior to raising preliminary issues such as a request for particulars. See Glynn v. Lowe’s Companies Canada, 2009 HRTO 1180, Ugolini v. Salvation Army Barrie, 2009 HRTO 1801, Asefa v. Can-Am Logistics, 2010 HRTO 1531, and Rose v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 1784.
8The question is whether or not the contents of the Application are so inadequate that the respondents do not know the case that they are being called upon to respond to. In my view, while there are some allegations of ongoing behaviour which is only described in general terms, the respondents cannot say that they do not know what it is that the applicant is alleging occurred, and who it is that the applicant alleges was involved.
9At this early stage of the process, the respondents have more than enough particulars of what is alleged to provide a complete Response or Responses. It may be appropriate to request further particulars of some of the more general allegations at a later date; however, at this stage the respondents are required to file a complete Response or Responses to the Application.
10For these reasons, the Request is denied and the respondents are directed to deliver and file a Response or Responses to the Application within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
11I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of July, 2016.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair