Cathy O’Regan v. Firestone Textiles Company, 2009 HRTO 2219

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Cathy O’Regan Applicant

-and-

Firestone Textiles Company, A Division of Bridgestone/Firestone Canada Inc., Lynda Ruffo and Bill Matetich Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: December 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2219 Indexed as: O’Regan v. Firestone Textiles

1This is an Application filed June 1, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A hearing on a preliminary issue is scheduled for March 2, 2010. This Interim Decision deals with a request for production.

2The complaint underlying the present Application was filed with the Commission on February 1, 2008. The applicant asserts that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of disability.

3The applicant asserts that following a medical leave of nine weeks she returned to work in November 2007. When she broke down during a conversation with a human resources staff person, it was suggested she seek counselling. As a result the applicant spoke with an employment lawyer and sent a letter to human resources expressing concerns about her conversation with the human resources staff person.

4On January 2, 2008, she was advised by the same human resources staff person that her employment was being terminated due to a staff reduction. In her complaint, the applicant alleges that she believed that her termination was due to her taking leave.

5The respondents offered the applicant a termination package which required her to sign a release for all claims relating to her employment. The termination letter dated January 2, 2007 offered the applicant until January 18, 2007 to accept the terms. The applicant signed the release on January 15, 2007, and accepted the termination money.

6The respondents asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application in light of the signed release. The preliminary hearing is scheduled to hear the respondents’ request for early dismissal.

7The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents for the preliminary hearing. All of the documents except one relate to the merits of the underlying claim that there was no staff reduction and that the applicant was selected for termination because of her recent medical leave. In my view, those documents are not arguably relevant to the issue whether the applicant should be barred from proceeding with this Application in light of the signed release.

8The applicant also requests all documents addressed to her regarding the human rights issue prior to the presentation of the termination letter. It is apparent from the applicant’s Request that no such documents exist. In any event, all documents addressed to the applicant should be in her possession. I see no need to make an order with respect to this matter.

9The applicant’s request for production is denied.

10The respondents asked for clarification why the preliminary issue has been set down for an oral hearing. As the Tribunal has already advised the respondents, they are asking the Tribunal to finally dispose of the Application. Section 43(2)1 of the Code states that the Tribunal may not finally dispose of an Application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.