Dube v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, 2009 HRTO 132

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ritchy Dube Applicant

-and-

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, Elaine MacNeil, Al Cornes, Greg Pollock, Siria Szkurhan, Lyn Vause, and Carley Desjardins Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: February 5, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 132 Indexed as: Dube v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Richy Dube, Applicant On His Own Behalf

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, Elaine MacNeil, Al Cornes, Greg Pollock, Siria Szkurhan, Lyn Vause, and Carley Desjardins, Respondents Fay Faraday, Counsel

1The applicant has filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings. The first seeks to amend his Application and the second seeks production of various documents.

2The applicant seeks to amend his Application, originally filed in relation to employment, to allege discrimination in contracts, and to file the appropriate supplemental form. He states that this was "a two-day contract and not an employment relationship". The respondents consent to the filing of the new supplemental form. They ask, however, that portions of the Application that refer to the ground of record of offences and the previously filed supplemental form related to employment be "struck from the application". They note that the ground of record of offences does not apply to claims of discrimination in contracts. They also seek leave to amend their Response in consequence of a new allegation and have provided the text of the requested amendments.

3The amendments proposed by both parties are appropriate and the requests to amend the Application and Response are granted. There is no need to strike portions of this Application as a preliminary matter. The issues about the scope of the Application raised by the respondents can be addressed at the hearing. I note that in his submissions, the applicant appears to acknowledge that he is only pursuing allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability.

4The applicant's production request is premature. Under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, each party must deliver to the other a list and copy of all arguably relevant documents in its possession within 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties. No Confirmation of Hearing has been issued in this case and there are no special circumstances that justify a production order at this stage of the process. The applicant may file a new request if the documents are not provided in accordance with Rule 16.

5I am not seized of this matter.