Yagu Coker v. Arts Bureau for the Continents/Congress Travel and Cruises, 2010 HRTO 1955

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yagu Coker

Applicant

-and-

Arts Bureau for the Continents/Congress Travel and Cruises, Lois Harper and Don Harper

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: September 24, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1955 Indexed as: Coker v. Arts Bureau for the Continents/Congress Travel and Cruises

1This is an Application filed on July 23, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). Mediation did not result in a settlement of the Application and the Tribunal will be scheduling a hearing in the matter.

2The respondents have filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars, production of documents and production of information about a witness. The applicant has filed a Response to the Request. In the Response, the applicant has provided further particulars, through affidavits from former co-workers. She has also provided contact information for the witness.

3Given the provision of further particulars and information, the Tribunal makes no direction on these issues. The Tribunal refers the parties to Rule 5.7 of its Rules of Procedure, which states:

5.7. Where a party seeks to present evidence or make submissions with respect to a fact or issue that was not raised in the Application, Response, Reply, or in the materials filed under Rule 16 or 17, the Tribunal may refuse to allow the party to present evidence or make submissions about the fact or issue unless satisfied that there would be no substantial prejudice and no undue delay to the proceedings.

4The respondents’ request for production of documents relates entirely to medical records, and covers a period of more than ten years, including certain records from the applicant’s childhood. The applicant has provided certain medical documents to the respondents, but objects to production of the other documents requested.

5Among other things, the applicant states that the request for medical documents is premature as the applicant’s medical conditions will only become relevant at the remedy stage of the hearing, after Code violations have been established. The Tribunal notes that no direction has been made as to the bifurcation of the hearing between liability and remedy issues.

6In any event, the Tribunal does not generally determine disputes about production of documents prior to the deadlines provided in its Rules for documentary disclosure. In this case, the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing has not yet been issued, and when it is, the parties will be obliged to deliver to each other all arguably relevant documents in their possession, within 21 days of the Notice.

7The Tribunal will therefore not determine all the issues raised by the Request at this time. However, the parties are aware of the nature of dispute about the scope of production. It is in their interests to attempt to resolve these disputes early, to minimize the possibility of delays in the hearing. The applicant has indicated that she is willing to provide the necessary written consents to enable the respondents to obtain certain of the medical records requested, and the Tribunal will accordingly direct her to do so.

8In view of the above, the Tribunal directs the applicant to provide the necessary written consents to enable the respondents to obtain the documents described in paragraph 26 of her Response to the Request. These consents should be provided with 21 days of this Interim Decision.

9Any remaining issues about production may be raised if necessary following the deadlines for disclosure under Rule 16.1.

10I am not seized of this matter.