Yavuz Gungor v. Canadian Auto Workers Local 88, 2009 HRTO 1226

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Yavuz Gungor

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Auto Workers Local 88

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: August 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1226

Indexed as: Gungor v. Canadian Auto Workers Local 88

1This is an Application filed December 12, 2008 under section 53(3) 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 a request for production.

2The applicant self-identifies as a person with a disability. In April 2005, he filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against Cami Automotive (the “Employer”) and Canadian Auto Workers Local 88, the respondent (the “Union”) with respect to an alleged failure to accommodate his disability. The complaint against the Union relates in part to its failure to pursue his posting grievance to arbitration. The applicant seeks unspecified financial compensation for losses caused by the Union.

3The applicant entered into confidential minutes of settlement with the Employer and signed a release. The Union is seeking an order requiring the applicant to disclose the minutes of settlement and release, as well as pre-settlement discussions which would explain the basis for the calculation of any monetary remedy paid to the applicant. The Union submitted that the terms of the settlement may be relevant to the issue of the applicant’s damages, if any, against it. They also asserted that the terms of the minutes of settlement and release may impact the applicant’s ability to continue the present Application against it.

4The applicant opposes production on the basis of relevance and in reliance on the privilege that attaches to settlement documents. The Employer has advised that it has no objection to the production of the settlement and release documents.

5Although the privilege which generally attaches to settlement documents is an important one, an exception exists where the relevance of the documents, apart from demonstrating an admission against interest or weakness of one party’s claim, can be established. In my view, the documents requested are arguably relevant to the issue of the applicant’s ability to continue the Application against the Union and also to the issue of compensation which may flow to the applicant if a violation of the Code is found.

6However, it would be premature to order the pre-settlement discussions at this stage. I will defer that decision to the Member hearing the Application. I note that an order for disclosure of arguably relevant documents is not a determination that the documents will be admitted at the hearing.

7The respondent is ordered to provide the minutes of settlement and release to the Union within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision.