Firth v. Sidana, 2009 HRTO 108

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Danielle Firth

Applicant

-and-

Sidana Inc., Sidney Abram and Terry Taylor

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 2, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 108

Indexed as: Firth v. Sidana

1This is an Application filed August 25, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with a request for a production made by the respondents on January 20, 2009. The applicant has provided further materials following the respondents’ original requests however there remain issues between the parties.

2The applicant alleges that she has been discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation when the respondents, her former employer and supervisors, ceased scheduling her for work when they learned of her sexual orientation.

3In their Response the respondents, Sidan and Sidney Abram, deny the allegation and suggest that the applicant made herself unavailable for work because she had obtained employment elsewhere. Accordingly, these respondents state that evidence related to the circumstance surrounding the applicant’s new employment, including when she started working, are arguably relevant to the issues in dispute in this Application.

4In their initial request the respondents sought four categories of documents. The applicant states that the first two categories either do not exist or have been provided already. There will be no Order in respect of these requests.

5The respondents seek the following documents:

a. A copy of the time sheet referred to in an email dated January 9^th^ 2009.

b. The name and address of the person with whom the applicant began working in delivering mail.

6In respect of sub-paragraph a, above, it is not clear to what the respondents refer. However, to the extent it relates to an enquiry with respect to when the applicant began her work delivering mail, it is arguably relevant.

7Some of the material already provided by the applicant is relevant to the defence raised by the respondents in that does reflect a significant number of days worked delivering mail in 2008, but it does not identify, except in general terms, precisely when this employment began. I agree with the respondents that when and how the applicant came to begin this employment, in particular the date she began working and the frequency of the work, may be arguably relevant to their defence. I also understand the applicant’s concerns that the requests as framed might be overbroad and invasive without casting any light at all on the issues in dispute. I am also cognisant of the fact that the Case Resolution Conference will take place on February 9, 2009.

8Accordingly the Tribunal makes the following Order:

The Applicant will produce as soon as possible any further documents in her possession, or obtainable by her, including time sheets or invoices submitted by her which will indicate the dates upon which she worked from December 1, 2007 through the calendar year 2008, delivering mail.

9I am not seized of this case.