HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elroy Ellis
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and Lori Foot
Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Elroy Ellis
Applicant
-and-
Ontario College of Teachers, Brian McGowan and Christopher Sach-Anderson
Respondents
AND B E T W E E N:
Elroy Ellis
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman, Robert Garton and Doug Stroud
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Anne McKellar
Indexed as: Ellis v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
1These are Applications filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is the same in each file. He is a teacher who was the subject of some matters with the professional regulatory body for teachers, the Ontario College of Teachers, while he was in the employ of the Peel District School Board of Education. His bargaining agent was the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (the “OSSTF”). Each of his Applications relates to the conduct of one of these institutional parties and various individuals employed by or representing them.
2The Tribunal has previously indicated to the parties that these three matters will proceed together. A hearing has been scheduled to take place on April 6, 2010.
3The applicant has made a Request for the production of documents/disclosure of information. The respondents have replied to his Request and identified the following: (1) whether documents responsive to the request exist; (2) whether they are prepared to disclose them (in which case they have now been provided); (3) setting out any basis for declining to produce documents that exist, primarily that they are not arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Applications; and (4) declining to interrogate certain individuals to furnish the applicant with information that he would like to rely on. Clearly, there are outstanding differences between the applicant on the one hand, and the respondents on the other, respecting what documents are in existence, and whether they must be produced.
4I agree with the submission of the OSSTF that it is premature at this point to make any orders respecting production. All of the respondents make a preliminary objection that the applicant has not made out a prima facie case of a Code contravention, and all of them also assert that he is improperly attempting to expand his allegations to include matters not raised in his complaints to the Commission. The determination of those issues has the potential to render moot any question of further production, and anything the Tribunal has to say about the scope of the Applications and the issues properly before the Tribunal will have a significant impact on the assessment of what documents might be arguably relevant. These matters will be addressed at the hearing on April 6, 2010.
5The applicant’s Request is denied. He may renew his Request, if necessary, once the preliminary matters have been determined.
6I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of December, 2009.
“Signed by”
Mary Anne McKellar
Vice-chair