HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Robert Neil Nelson
Complainant
-and-
Lakehead University
Bahram Dadgostar and Jerry Phillips
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
400 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 1T7
Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946
TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168
E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca
Website www.hrto.ca
APPEARANCES
Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Eddie Taylor, Counsel
Robert Neil Nelson, Complainant ) On his own behalf
Lakehead University, Corporate Respondent ) Fred Bickford, Counsel
Bahram Dadgostar, Personal Respondent )
Jerry Phillips, Personal Respondent ) Robert Edwards, Counsel
Introduction
1This is a complaint brought under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“the Code”), by Robert Neil Nelson (“the Complainant”) alleging that the Respondents, Lakehead University, Bahram Dadgostar and Jerry Phillips, have infringed his right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination on the basis of age contrary to sections 5(1) and 9 of the Code.
2The hearing into the merits of this complaint commenced on December 6, 2006. On the fourth day of the hearing on December 12, 2006, the Commission filed a letter dated December 11, 2006 requesting further particulars and disclosure of documents from the Respondents Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar. The request, which was amended in the course of oral submissions, is for the following:
- All documents pertaining to the turnover rate of faculty in the Faculty of Business Administration from 1995 to the present. This includes all resignations, leaves-of-absence, terminations, and all new hires.
All documents in respect of other competition processes held in the Faculty of Business Administration from 1995 to the present; and any documents relating to staffing positions complement.
- All documents concerning the duties of Dr. Carmen Mihai in her position of tenure track position of Assistant Professor Human Resources Management and Organizational Behaviour in respect of the first year of her employment. This includes all documents on courses of instruction, research activities and University administrative responsibilities including the annual report of her activities.
All results of student’s surveys evaluating the teaching performance of Dr. Mihai. All information on peer evaluations of Dr. Mihai’s teaching and research performances.
- The identity of the authors of the ballots of the Search Committee recommending Dr. Mihai which bear the comments:
#1 “better investment in the long run”
#2 “Dr. Carman is far more superior candidate in comparison to older 2”
- All documentation forwarded by Lakehead University to Maclean’s in respect of Maclean’s annual survey of universities from 1995 to present.
3The Respondents opposed the request and the Tribunal heard submissions from the parties on the issue on December 13, 2006.
4In addition, on December 13, 2006, Counsel for the Respondent, Jerry Phillips, indicated that he had issued a summons to Helen Eaton of Lakehead University requiring that she attend at the hearing and produce the “Entire official personnel file and all Curriculum Vitae, any application file to the Tenure and Promotion Committee of Sharon Cole…”. Counsel indicated that the file was being requested for the purpose of his cross-examination of Ms. Cole, which was to commence upon the resumption of the hearing on February 22, 2007.
5Counsel for the Respondents, Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar, stated that his clients were prepared to have Ms. Eaton bring the file to the hearing, have her affirmed as a witness and the file entered as an exhibit. However, Counsel for the Commission took the position that notice should be given to Ms. Cole in advance of the continuation of the hearing should she wish to seek the advice of counsel on the summons. The parties requested that the Tribunal provide direction with respect to this issue.
6This interim decision addresses the Commission’s request for further particulars and production as well as providing direction on the summons issued to Helen Eaton.
Background of the Complaint
7The complaint was referred to the Tribunal on February 8, 2006. In accordance with normal pre-hearing procedures, pleadings and disclosure were exchanged between the parties in June and July 2006.
8In its pleadings, the Commission relied on the facts set out in the complaint. The Complainant, who was then 58 years old, applied for an Assistant Professor position in Human Resources Management and Organizational Behaviour at Lakehead University in 2002. It is alleged that the Respondents considered the Complainant’s age in the selection process for this position. The allegations include asking questions about the Complainant’s age, and the Respondent Jerry Phillips leading a lobbying campaign to sway votes against the Complainant’s candidacy at the discipline group and faculty levels.
9In their Response, the Respondents deny that the Complainant’s age was considered in the selection process and assert that the Respondents followed proper procedures in the hiring process including applying the criteria in the collective agreement between the Respondent University and the Lakehead University Faculty Association. This procedure included the evaluation of candidates according to specified criteria by a Hiring Committee; the recommendation of a candidate, Dr. Carmen Mihai, to faculty members in the Faculty of Business Administration; and a vote on the recommended candidate by faculty members. According to the Respondents, the Complainant was not selected for the position because he did not have the academic qualifications (PhD in Human Resource Management or related areas); the quality of his teaching was demonstrated to be unsatisfactory in the teaching presentation in the interview process; his research and scholarly activities were deficient and lacking currency; and he had not discharged reasonable administrative responsibilities within the university community. In comparison, the successful candidate, Dr. Carmen Mihai, was selected because of her qualifications and performance in the teaching and research presentations in the interview process. Further, the Respondents have relied on the Respondent University’s employment equity policy arguing that even if the Complainant was equally qualified to the successful incumbent, the employment equity policy would require that Dr. Mihai receive the appointment.
10At the pre-hearing conference call, it was determined that notice of the hearing would be given to Dr. Mihai, the successful incumbent. On September 19, 2006, the Tribunal provided notice of the hearing to Dr. Mihai. The notice stated in part:
On November 22, 2002, the above-noted human rights complaint was filed by Dr. Robert Nelson alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of age in the job competition process for the Assistant Professor position in Human Resources Management and Organizational Behaviour at Lakehead University that you were awarded in 2002. ….
In the hearing, there may be an issue concerning the comparative qualifications and participation of the candidates in the competition process. As you were a candidate and ultimately awarded the position, there may be evidence given of your qualifications and participation in the process.
Please advise the Tribunal in writing by September 26, 2006 if you wish to participate in the proceedings and any submissions in support of the request…
11Initially, Dr. Mihai, along with the Lakehead University Faculty Association, sought intervention in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Their motions for intervention were opposed by the Commission and the Complainant. However, after filing motions to intervene and prior to the Tribunal hearing the motions, Dr. Mihai and the Lakehead University Faculty Association withdrew their motions.
12At around the same time that the motions were withdrawn, the Respondent Jerry Phillips retained separate counsel to represent him in the proceeding although no additional pleadings were filed. Previously, all Respondents were represented by the same counsel.
13Prior to the oral hearing commencing, the Commission filed a motion seeking further disclosure from the Respondents, Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar, including all documents from the selection process for the job competition process complained about and documents about the Respondent University’s employment equity plan. Additional documents were provided to the Commission and the other parties in response to this request.
14The hearing into the merits commenced on December 6, 2006. In opening statements, the parties identified the issues in the complaint consistent with the issues that had been identified in the pleadings of the parties. The Commission stated that the issues were as follows:
Was the right of the complainant to equal treatment with respect to employment infringed when the respondents considered his age?
Did the consideration of the complainant’s age taint the objective criteria as set out in the job description?
Was the complainant’s age a factor in the decision not to hire him?
Is the evidence, on the face of the complaint complete and sufficient to justify a verdict in the complainant’s favour, in the absence of an answer from the respondent?
15While the Respondents defined the issues somewhat differently, the focus was also on the selection process. The Respondents submitted that the issue was whether the Complainant was discriminated against because of age based on the following three part test established by the Tribunal to be utilized in hiring situations: (i) whether the Complainant was qualified for the particular position, (ii) whether the Complainant was hired, and (iii) whether the successful incumbent was no better qualified than the Complainant.
16On the fourth day of hearing, midway through the cross-examination of Sharon Cole, the Commission’s third and what was initially described as its final witness, the Commission requested the additional particulars and production of documentation as set out above. The issue was argued on December 13, 2006.
17The Commission asserted that all of these documents were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute. The Complainant, who was not in attendance, made no submissions on the request.
18The Respondents objected to producing any of the documents on the basis that the documents did not meet the test of arguable relevance or should otherwise be protected from disclosure because of privacy or confidentiality concerns. In addition, the Respondents raised a general concern about the timing of the request for production. It was argued that the late request for additional documentation reinforced the conclusion that the documents were not arguably relevant and that the request was essentially a “fishing expedition” to obtain documents to repair a weak case.
19It should be noted that all Respondents took the same position on the request for disclosure and particulars, although additional submissions were advanced in some instances by Counsel for Jerry Phillips. Where this occurred, the additional submissions are identified below.
The Commission’s Request for Disclosure and Particulars
General Legal Principles
20The Tribunal’s Rules provide for detailed disclosure of positions and documentation well in advance of the commencement of the hearing on the merits. In particular, Rules 37 to 40 provide for the exchange of pleadings setting out, among other things, the statement of facts, issues and remedy in dispute. In addition, Rules 41 through 43 provide for full disclosure and production of each party’s evidence including any relevant documents to the other parties within a specified timeframe after the initial conference call.
21However, while it is contemplated that disclosure, production and particulars would generally be exchanged in the pre-hearing process, Rule 47 provides the Tribunal with the discretion to direct further production of documents or particulars at any time in the proceeding. In particular, Rule 47 provides:
- At any time in a proceeding, subject to a claim of privilege asserted, a panel may order any party to deliver to any other party particulars, physical or documentary evidence, expert reports, lists of witnesses and witness statements for the purpose of the hearing and anything else the panel considers appropriate for a full and satisfactory understanding of the issues in the proceeding.
22The threshold test for production is arguable relevance, a threshold that has been described as “not a particularly high bar”. It requires that there be some relevance and that the party seeking production demonstrate a nexus between the information sought and the issues in dispute. (See eg. Biederman v. Banfai, 2000 CanLII 49403 (ON HRT), 38 C.H.R.R. D/395 (Ont. Bd. Inq.) at para. 14).
23Even where documents sought meet the test of arguable relevance, it has been noted that other issues may arise such as privacy, which may require that an adjudicator determine, if and under what conditions, the document(s) will be produced. Further, the Tribunal may also need to consider, the issue of privilege as it relates to documents sought (See Biederman, supra, at para. 15 and 16).
24In addressing the Commission’s request, the Tribunal has considered whether the documents or particulars are arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding. Although submissions were made by the parties in respect of certain requests about privacy and confidentiality concerns, in light of the Tribunal’s findings, it was not necessary to address these other considerations.
1. Turnover Rate of Faculty, Staff Complement and Other Competition Processes
25The Commission argued that documents pertaining to the turnover rate of faculty in the Faculty of Business Administration, the staffing positions complement and other competition processes met the threshold of arguable relevance. The period 1995 to the present was described as an appropriate period to request disclosure because it coincides with the date that the Faculty of Business Administration came into being, as well as the tenure of the Respondent, Bahram Dadgostar, as dean of the faculty.
26The Commission argued that there had been evidence given in the hearing about turnover in the faculty and that information regarding turnover of faculty and staff complement could be probative for the Tribunal. With respect to the request for documents for staffing complement, the Commission similarly speculated that the Faculty of Business Administration may have had difficulty filling its full complement of staff and the Commission required information about staffing complement so that it could question the Respondents about this topic. The Commission suggested that this information may be probative for the Tribunal since it may reflect that the atmosphere is so bad that the University cannot get someone to work there.
27In the course of its submissions, the Commission added the request for documentation of other competition processes in the period specified at the outset of this decision. In support of this request, the Commission argued that there had been considerable evidence about the competition process leading to the complaint being filed and it was important to know how frequently competitions had been held in the faculty and whether the competition process held in respect of the position sought by the Complainant was analogous to other competition processes.
28In response Counsel for the Respondents, Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar, argued that the onus was on the Commission to establish arguable relevance and it had failed to make the necessary link between the documents requested and the issues in the case. It argued that the Commission had not relied on turnover rate, staffing complement or evidence concerning other competition processes in its case thus far including in the examination of its own witnesses, and the Respondents were not using any evidence of this type to defend against the complaint. Counsel suggested that the timing of the request for production was salient; the request was coming at virtually the end of the Commission’s case because it was a fishing expedition to try to find new grounds in the face of a weak case.
29In addition, Counsel noted that it had already provided disclosure of a sampling of other competition processes in its initial disclosure to the Commission, although it suggested that its provision of this disclosure was not an acknowledgement that the documents were arguably relevant. Counsel stated that he was uncertain as to whether additional documentation existed from that already provided to the Commission.
30While the parties argued the request for documents of turnover rate, staffing complement and other competition processes together, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to address them separately.
31The Tribunal does not find that the Commission has established that its request for documents of turnover rate meet the test of being arguably relevant. There was brief mention made by the Commission’s witness, Sharon Cole, of hiring not being an unusual event because there was regular turnover in the faculty. However, the fact that turnover in faculty has been mentioned in the evidence does not in and of itself justify a request for disclosure. The Commission must still establish that there is a nexus between the information requested for documents extending over a period of approximately twelve years and the issues in the case. While the Commission suggested that evidence of turnover rate could be probative for the Tribunal, no explanation of how it could be probative to the issues in the case was provided and the Tribunal does not see any obvious probative value to the potential evidence.
32The Tribunal reaches the same conclusion with respect to the request for all documents of staffing positions complement. While the Commission has stated it would like to ask questions about staff complement, the Commission has not established how this line of questioning and any evidence that may be elicited from this line of questioning about the atmosphere in the faculty being potentially poor are related or linked to the issues of the alleged discrimination in the selection process.
33Further the Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion to order that documentation of other competition processes be produced.
34In support of this request, the Commission argued that it needed to understand whether the competition process participated in by the Complainant was analogous to the process in other competitions. The Commission's allegation in the complaint is that the selection process was tainted. In response, the Respondents have indicated, among other things, that the competition was conducted in accordance with the criteria in the collective agreement, which have been in place for many years. In light of these issues, and the low standard governing disclosure, documentation of other competition processes is arguably relevant.
35However, the Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion to order the requested material. The request for documentation was made for the first time in the Commission's oral submissions on December 13, 2006. There was no explanation given as to why the request was not made earlier, either in the course of the Commission's investigation or in the pre-hearing process after the referral to the Tribunal. This is not a new issue. Indeed, there has been some documentation already provided although notably the Commission did not explain why the documentation was deficient or refer to it in its presentation of its case thus far. There is a potential for prejudice and disruption of securing a just and expeditious determination of the merits of the complaint if documentation of other competition processes is now produced. Having regard to these considerations, in the absence of any explanation of why the request is being made now, the Tribunal declines to exercise its discretion to order the requested material.
2. Documents concerning Duties and Evaulations of Dr. Mihai
36The Commission argued that documents concerning the duties of Dr. Mihai should be produced because it was important for the Commission to know what the incumbent did after she was hired. The Commission argued that the actions of the Respondents throughout are part of the Tribunal’s inquiry and therefore the documents from this period were relevant. The Commission stated that should the Respondents contend there is a reasonable explanation for their conduct, the onus would shift to the Commission to show that the explanation is a pretext and that the true explanation is discrimination and the Commission would require these documents in order to challenge the reasonableness of any explanation given.
37The Commission made only limited submissions in support of the request for peer evaluations and student evaluations of Dr. Mihai indicating that such information is generally produced in other cases involving universities.
38Counsel for the Respondents, Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar, objected to the request of both types of documents – duties and evaluations – on the basis that there was no arguable relevance to the issues in the case. Counsel argued that the complaint was about whether or not there was age discrimination in a selection process and that documents dealing with what the successful incumbent did in the year following her hiring could not have anything to do with what happened in the selection process and whether or not the Respondents had infringed the Complainant’s rights under the Code. In addition, Counsel argued that the documents requested were not relevant to any position that it was advancing as a response to the complaint.
39Counsel did note that although the University collected student evaluations of professors it did not have any peer evaluations or documents associated with that type of evaluation.
40Counsel for the Respondent, Jerry Phillips, supported the submissions of the other Respondents. In addition, Counsel argued that to permit production of this type of documentation would raise enormous concerns for Dr. Mihai. Until this request, Counsel argued that the allegation was that there had been a tainted process, which resulted in Dr. Mihai being hired. This characterization of the issues in the case was set out in the Tribunal’s notice to Dr. Mihai and was consistent with the Commission’s opening statement and evidence thus far. Counsel argued that this request goes far beyond the case as originally pleaded and presented and that it would be very unfair to Dr. Mihai to now allow the Commission to raise new issues since the prejudice to Dr. Mihai could not be cured by an order of confidentiality.
41The Tribunal denies the Commission’s request to have documents produced about the post-hiring duties and evaluations of Dr. Mihai. The request is coming near the conclusion of the Commission’s case. At this point in the proceeding, the issues in the case have been well-defined and relate specifically to the selection process for the position in question, issues which were reflected in the notice to the incumbent. The Complainant alleges that the process was tainted by the consideration of his age and the Respondents answer the complaint with reference to their conduct in the selection process including their assessment of the candidates in that process. It is notable that the Commission has never alleged that the job criteria against which the candidates were assessed were inaccurate. Indeed, the framing of the issues by the Commission as identified in paragraph 14 above suggests the opposite since the second issue is defined as whether consideration of the Complainant’s age “taint(ed) the objective criteria as set out in the job description”.
42In light of the issues in this case, the Tribunal does not find that evidence about what Dr. Mihai actually did after she was hired and how she actually performed in her position as may be reflected by student evaluations is arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding.
43The Tribunal agrees with the Commission’s assertion that the Tribunal’s inquiry may extend up to the date of hearing. However, in this complaint there are no allegations that the discrimination continued. Moreover, as noted above, the Tribunal does not find that the evidence after the selection process would be probative given the issues in the case.
3. Identity of the Ballot Signatories
44The Commission also sought particulars of the authors of two of the ballots submitted during the competition process as outlined above. It should be noted that the Respondents took issue with the transcribing of the notation from the ballots suggesting that the notation is different from that provided by the Commission. However, these ballots have not been admitted into evidence and for purposes of this decision, the Tribunal does not find it necessary to address this disagreement.
45The Commission argued that the particulars were arguably relevant to the issues in the case since the statements on the ballots reflected a concern with forward- reaching issues and hence there was a nexus between the ballots and the issue of age discrimination.
46Counsel for the Respondents, Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar, objected to providing particulars on several grounds. Counsel stated that the ballots were cast as secret ballots and that in the absence of a balloter identifying himself or herself, it would not be possible to identify the author. Counsel indicated that it already produced what did exist; namely, the ballots (which in some instances reflect the signatory) and a list of who voted. In any event, Counsel disputed that the information requested was arguably relevant since it did not accept that the statements had anything to do with age discrimination. Counsel suggested that the late request for disclosure of the balloters was indicative of the Commission embarking on a fishing expedition to repair a bad case. Finally, Counsel argued that the confidentiality of the ballots should be respected since this type of balloting is integral to peer review in a university context. Counsel noted that the courts have protected the confidentiality of opinions of faculty members in appointment, tenure, renewal and similar decisions and this approach should apply in this case. In support of his submissions, Counsel relied on Re University of Guelph and Canadian Association of University Teachers et al. (1980), 1980 CanLII 1839 (ON HCJ), 29 O.R. (2d) 312 (Ont.H.C.).
47The Tribunal denies the request of the Commission. The Tribunal accepts that subject to considerations of confidentiality, unaltered ballots are arguably relevant to the issues in the complaint. However, this is not a request for unaltered ballots, but rather that the Respondents produce the particulars of the signatories. The Tribunal accepts Counsel’s representations that the Respondents do not have information regarding the authors of the particular ballots in question, since the authors did not sign the ballots. What information does exist - the list of which faculty members voted and copies of unaltered ballots (with the authors identified when they chose to self-identify) - have already been given to the Commission. The Tribunal does not find it appropriate to order that the Respondents do what would be tantamount to an investigation of the ballots to try to determine who signed the ballots.
48In light of the Tribunal’s conclusion, it is not necessary to address the other objections to producing the particulars including whether the ballots should be respected on the basis of the principle of confidentiality. The Tribunal will address the issue should it become necessary to do so in the course of this proceeding.
4. Documentation forwarded to Maclean’s Survey of Universities
49The Commission’s request for copies of documents that the University submitted to the Maclean’s survey of universities was based on the submission that the documentation would be probative of atmosphere, morale and attractiveness of Lakehead University. The Commission noted that the evidence in cross-examination had indicated that the University had changed its focus from teaching to more emphasis on research and that survey information may provide an objective analysis of how students felt about the changes. In addition, the Commission indicated that this documentation could provide information on when the change in focus from teaching to research occurred. As with some of its other requests, the Commission requested documents from the period 1995 to the present, to coincide with the tenure of the Respondent Bahram Dadgostar as Dean of the Faculty of Business Administration.
50In response, Counsel for the Respondents, Lakehead University and Bahram Dadgostar, argued that this request does not meet the test of arguable relevance. Counsel suggested the Commission was attempting to expand the inquiry to question the affairs and direction of the Faculty of Business. Counsel contended that this expanded inquiry was beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal which was to determine whether or not there was age discrimination in the selection process, and hence, the information requested should not be ordered to be produced.
51The Tribunal denies the request for production on the basis that the Commission has not established a link between the issues in the case and the information sought.
52The Commission has stated that it requests the information because it may be probative of atmosphere, morale and attractiveness of the University. This may be accurate. However, the Commission has not indicated how this type of evidence of atmosphere and perceptions is related to the issues in the proceeding concerning the alleged age discrimination in the selection process.
53The Commission has also justified its request on the basis that the documentation may provide an objective analysis of how students felt about the change in focus from teaching to research, which occurred in the Faculty of Business and the University at large. There has been evidence about this change in focus and its impact on the type of credentials being sought of applicants for positions, although there does not appear to be any allegation that the changes were implemented for reasons connected to the alleged discrimination. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not find that evidence about the change, including the perceptions of students about the change, is probative to the issues in the complaint.
54The Commission has also stated that it was requesting the information since it may provide information on when the change in focus from teaching to research occurred. There has been evidence about a change in direction in the Faculty of Business, although it is not apparent that there is any dispute about when it occurred. In the evidence, the change in direction has been linked to the establishment of two graduate programs. Presumably, any clarification of the precise date can be established through questioning of witnesses. In any event, the Tribunal does not find that the date of the change is relevant to the issues in the proceeding given that the position of the Respondents is that the Complainant was not selected based on their evaluation of both his teaching and research skills.
The Summons to Helen Eaton
55As noted above, Counsel for the Respondent, Jerry Phillips indicated that he had issued a summons to Ms. Eaton requesting her attendance at the hearing and that she bring with her the “entire official personnel file and all curriculum vitae, any application file to the Tenure and Promotion Committee of Sharon Cole”. Counsel’s request is to have the documentation produced for potential use during his cross-examination of the witness, Ms. Cole, when the hearing resumes.
56While a summons must not be drafted too broadly, the usual process is to bring the documents requested to the hearing. If an issue arises about the relevance of any particular document, it is determined by the Tribunal in the course of the hearing.
57In this case, none of the parties have asserted that the summons is overly broad and accordingly, in the normal course, the documentation requested should be produced. However, the Commission has taken the position that based on section 11 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter S.22, as amended, notice should be given to the witness, Sharon Cole, of the request.
58Section 11 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act provides as follows:
- (1) A witness at an oral or electronic hearing is entitled to be advised by counsel or an agent as to his or her rights but such counsel or agent may take no other part in the hearing without leave of the tribunal.
59While this section provides that a witness is entitled to be advised by counsel, the Tribunal does not find that this section requires that a tribunal advise a witness of that right. More specifically, the Tribunal does not find that this section requires that it provide a witness with notice of a summons requesting documentation that may be used in the cross-examination of the witness.
60Accordingly, the Tribunal declines to direct that notice be given to the witness of the summons.
61With respect to the summons, in the normal course, the documents would be produced upon the resumption of the hearing. However, this procedure would potentially lead to a request for an adjournment so that Counsel for the Respondent, Jerry Phillips, could review the material. In order to avoid any potential delay and given the absence of any other objection to the summons, the Tribunal directs that the material requested pursuant to the summons be produced to Counsel for the Respondent Phillips within 7 days of this decision, with a copy to the Commission.
62The Tribunal notes that its direction to have the documentation produced does not mean that the documentation will necessarily be admitted.
63The Tribunal will address any issues raised about the relevance of the documentation or any other issue that may arise as it becomes necessary to do so.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of February, 2007.
“Signed By”
Kathleen Martin
Member```