HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Harry Dyal
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Transit Commission and Mike James
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: February 5, 2009
Citation: 2009 HRTO 134
Indexed as: Dyal v. Toronto Transit Commission
[1] This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for a second order for production of arguably relevant documents.
[2] The Application in this matter was filed on August 19, 2008. It relates to a complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on March 7, 2008, alleging that the respondents engaged in ongoing racial discrimination from May 2007 until the termination of the applicant’s employment in November 2007. The respondents deny the allegations of racial discrimination and assert that the applicant’s employment was terminated on the basis that he was impaired while on duty on November 11, 2007.
[3] The respondents had previously requested that the applicant produce notes, and records in connection with the applicant’s health condition on November 11, 2007, the date that the respondents assert that the applicant was intoxicated. The applicant intends to rely upon a report from the emergency department of a Toronto hospital that he attended on November 11, 2007.
[4] In 2009 HRTO 61, the Tribunal made a production Order as follows:
[The applicant shall] disclose to the respondents all notes, records and test results by any medical practitioner seen by the applicant in the month before or after November 11, 2007 in connection with his health condition of November 11, 2007, within 10 days of the date of this decision, or to advise the Tribunal and the respondents that such documents do not exist, within five days of the date of this decision.
[5] The applicant advised the respondent and Tribunal on January 28, 2009 that neither he nor “the doctor is able to produce a medical reports, test etc. in relation to his health condition (flu/cold) … because no such medical reports, etc. exist...”
[6] The respondents have concerns that the applicant has unduly narrowed the scope of the Order to contemplate only those records that might relate to a flu or cold allegedly being suffered b the applicant.
[7] I agree that the applicant has construed the prior Order too narrowly. To be clear the Order is not confined to those records related to the health condition of the applicant as alleged by the applicant, but is more generally framed to capture those records as they have been created by medical practitioners seen by the applicant in relation to his health condition in the month before or after November 11, 2007
[8] The previous Order made by the Tribunal is clear and unambiguous. No purpose would be served by a second Order in the circumstances.
[9] I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto this 5th day of February, 2009.
“Signed by”