Jean Wong v. G.H. Imported Merchandise & Sales Limited c.o.b. as Ash City, 2009 HRTO 523

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jean Wong

Applicant

-and-

G.H. Imported Merchandise & Sales Limited c.o.b. as Ash City

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: April 28, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 523

Indexed as: Wong v. G.H. Imported Merchandise & Sales

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on September 17, 2008.

2This Application has been scheduled for a hearing on June 17 and 18, 2009. In its Confirmation of Hearing Notice on March 17, 2009, the Tribunal drew the parties' attention to the requirements of Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure which require, among other things, that the parties deliver all arguably relevant documents to each other, within 21 days of the Notice. Pursuant to that Notice, the deadline for disclosure of such documents was April 7, 2009.

3On the same day the Notice was sent to the parties, the Tribunal received a Request for Order from the applicant asking the Tribunal to direct that the respondent produce "all internal emails/memos between its personnel regarding: (a) the decision to terminate Jean Wong's employment; and (b) the decision to close down the department in which she worked."

4The respondent responded to the Request by indicating that it was unnecessary and premature, given the Tribunal's Rules providing a procedure and time line for the disclosure and production of documents.

5Following the April 7, 2009 deadline for disclosure, the applicant renewed her Request for Order from the Tribunal. Counsel for the applicant states that the parties "have exchanged relevant documents by the deadline. However, it is apparent that the Respondent has failed to disclose the relevant documents that were sought by me…" Counsel for the applicant requests that the Tribunal convene a conference call for the purpose of making a decision on the Request. This letter was not copied to the respondent, as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

6The Tribunal brought the applicant's renewed Request to the attention of the respondent and asked the respondent for its Response. The respondent objects to the Request, stating that it has conducted a diligent and comprehensive search of its records for all documents in its possession relevant to the matters in dispute, including asking all of the relevant individuals involved about what documents may exist. Counsel for the respondent states that the documents that exist are those that have already been listed and produced as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

7Counsel for the applicant has sent further correspondence to the Tribunal, dated April 24, 2009, outlining the basis of the contention that there are more internal email messages than those which have been produced.

8The Tribunal declines to make the order requested by the applicant. There is no basis, on the material before me, for concluding that any specific document that is arguably relevant to the issues in the Application has been withheld by the respondent. The applicant has suspicions about the possible existence of other documents, but her suspicion alone is not a sufficient basis for a Tribunal order. The applicant may explore this issue through evidence given at the hearing and seek the Tribunal's direction if further information becomes available there.

9I am not seized.