Jessie Guay v. 1481979 Ontario Inc. and Michael Angst, 2009 HRTO 2247

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jessie Guay

Applicant

-and-

1481979 Ontario Inc. and Michael Angst

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: December 22, 2009

Citation Number: 2009 HRTO 2247

Indexed As: Guay v. 1481979 Ontario

1A hearing in regard to this Application was held on July 7, 2009. On November 10, 2009, I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) concerning two documents that were submitted at the hearing. It said in part:

This Interim Decision deals with two documents that were discussed at the hearing. The documents relate to YES, an employment agency.

The first document is a YES “Early Termination” form, dated August 19, 2009. This document was disclosed by the applicant in advance of the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s rules. At the hearing, Mr. Laplante argued that the document was not admissible because no one from YES was present to give evidence about it.

The second document is a YES “Record of Monitoring” form. This document was not disclosed by the applicant in advance of the hearing but was disclosed at the hearing. After reviewing it, Mr. Laplante asked that this document be admitted into evidence. The applicant consented to it being admitted.

At the hearing, I ruled that both documents would be admitted, subject to weight.

In reviewing the documents, I find that further information may be necessary to help me determine what, if any, weight to give to the documents. In particular, I need to know who created the documents; who provided the information recorded on them and when it was provided; and who entered that information on the documents.

The applicant is directed to obtain a sworn statement from the maker of the documents, presumably Joe which provides the above information. In addition, it is difficult to make out the writing on the Record of Monitoring form. The applicant will also provide a typed transcription of the writing, signed by Joe or the maker of the document, verifying the accuracy of the transcription.

The applicant is directed to file the sworn statement with the Tribunal and deliver it to the respondent’s counsel within three weeks of the date of this CAD.

2The CAD went on to indicate that the Tribunal would issue further case management directions following receipt of the materials.

3The applicant has filed documents pursuant to the CAD. These include two signed statements from Joe Conlon of YES Employment Services and a typed version of the two YES documents.

4Counsel for the respondents has acknowledged receipt of these documents but points out that they have not been sworn. To have a document sworn, it must be signed in the presence of someone capable of administering oaths (for example, a Commissioner of Oaths, a lawyer or a notary public). The purpose of this is to ensure that the author of the document is the person who has signed it and attests that the contents of the document are true.

5Counsel for the respondents advises that he has “a number of submissions and questions on the issues raised by the unsworn documents” and seeks further direction from the Tribunal.

6In the circumstances, I find that the fairest and most expeditious approach is to reconvene the hearing. The Registrar will schedule a date for the reconvened hearing. The applicant will have an opportunity to call the author of the YES documents as a witness. The witness may then be cross-examined by the respondents and both parties will have an opportunity to make submissions regarding the evidence and the documents in question. The applicant may wish to consult the Guide to Preparing for a Hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, available on the Tribunal’s website (www.hrto.ca), for information about how to obtain a summons, if necessary.