HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ryan Leverton

Applicant

-and-

Expert Global Solutions Protocol, Christina Gibson,

Kyle Stull and Melissa Drews

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: July 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 897

Indexed as: Leverton v. Expert Global Solutions Protocol

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Expert Global Solutions Protocol and Melissa Drews, Respondents

Monty Verlint, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and sexual orientation. This Interim Decision determines the request for particulars and for an extension of time to file a Response filed by the respondents Expert Global Solutions Protocol and Melissa Drews.

2The Request for Order During Proceedings ("Request") asks the Tribunal to order the applicant to provide full particulars of all allegations made in the Application, including the names of all individuals involved in the alleged conduct, where and when the events took place, details of alleged inappropriate comments or conduct, and how these relate to the Code. The respondents making the Request submit that the Application is so deficient of information about the alleged facts and legal issues that they are unable to comply with their obligation to file a Response.

3The applicant did not respond to the Request. The individual respondent Christina Gibson wrote to the Tribunal on April 7, 2016 requesting an extension to file a Response as she did not receive notice of the Application until April 6, 2016. The organizational respondent advised that the individual respondents Christina Gibson and Kyle Stull are no longer its employees. The organizational respondent confirmed on March 30, 2016 that it delivered the Request to the applicant and forwarded the Application and the Request to Christina Gibson and Kyle Stull and provided their last known addresses.

DECISION

4The Request for particulars is denied.

5I do not find that the information provided by the applicant is so inadequate or vague that additional particulars must be ordered at this stage of the proceedings in order for the respondents to understand the alleged claims.

6The 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 an application is so deficient of information about the alleged facts and legal issues that a respondent is unable to comply with its obligation to file a response. See: Miga v. Arcelor-Mital Defasco, 2012 HRTO 619.

7I have reviewed the Application and it appears that the applicant is alleging that his co-workers and coaches inappropriately questioned him about his sexual orientation and failed to accommodate his anxiety and depression by denying him appropriate coaching, training and by transferring him to a different job function. He also refers to alleged bullying and harassment and alleges that he was terminated while on sick leave. Though the applicant has not identified all of the particulars that he relies upon, there is sufficient information in the Application for the respondents to identify the nature of the alleged Code violations and legal issues.

8The Application is sufficiently detailed for the respondents to indicate what aspects of the Application are accepted or disputed and to set out their general response to the allegations. The respondents have not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify an order for particulars at this preliminary stage of proceedings and the Request is denied.

ORDER

9The Tribunal orders:

a. The Request for particulars is denied;

b. All respondents must file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

10I am not seized.