White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1057

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Svetlana White

Applicant

-and-

University of Ottawa

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Svetlana White

Applicant

-and-

National Committee on Accreditation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1057

Indexed as: White v. University of Ottawa

1This is an Application filed on January 9, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with various Requests for Orders filed by the applicant.

2On February 16, 2009 the applicant filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings requesting the production of particulars and documents from the respondents. On May 1, 2009, the applicant filed two Requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to obtain the documents and information sought in the earlier requests for Orders.

3The Tribunal has the authority to order an inquiry by section 44 of the Code in certain circumstances:

44. (1) At the request of a party to an application under this Part, the Tribunal may appoint a person to conduct an inquiry under this section if the Tribunal is satisfied that,

(a) an inquiry is required in order to obtain evidence;

(b) the evidence obtained may assist in achieving a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application; and

(c) it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances.

4The Tribunal has not yet exercised the power granted in this section of the Code and has yet to determine the circumstances where such an inquiry will be appropriate. However, a Tribunal ordered inquiry will not be a routine event and will not be a substitute for the usual production process contemplated by the Rules. In the normal course the parties are required to produce all arguably relevant documents in their possession. If the parties cannot agree or if one party has reason to believe that there are documents in the possession of a party or other person that have not been produced, the Tribunal has the authority to order the production of materials.

5I am not satisfied based on the material filed that an inquiry is required in order to obtain the evidence sought. In fact, the respondent University of Ottawa has indicated that it intends to provide all arguably relevant documents in its possession in accordance with the Rules. However, in order to ensure that these Applications are determined in a fair, just and expeditious manner, the respondent University of Ottawa will provide its substantive responses to the various requests for production and particulars contained in the Request for Order During Proceedings ( Form TR-4) filed by the applicant on February 16, 2009.

6The respondent National Committee on Accreditation has responded to the Requests by indicating that the material in question was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in response to the underlying complaint. The Tribunal by letter dated June 30, 2009 reminded the parties that they are free to obtain, pursuant to section 53(7) of the Code, a copy of “any information obtained by the Commission in the course of an investigation”.

ORDER

7The Requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry are denied.

8The University of Ottawa is directed to provide its substantive responses to the various requests for production and particulars contained in the Request for Order During Proceedings (Form TR-4) filed by the applicant on February 16, 2009, within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision.