Humphries v. General Motors of Canada, 2010 HRTO 2159

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Heather Humphries

Applicant

-and-

General Motors of Canada Limited, Sharron Smith,

Randy Giroux and Sykes Stan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2159

Indexed as: Humphries v. General Motors of Canada

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for production.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order dated October 10, 2010 seeking production of the Ontario “Certification of Apprenticeship”, Ontario “Certification of Qualification” and the Ontario or Red Seal Journeyperson license for a large number of General Motors (“GM”) employees.

3I agree with the respondents that, to the extent that some of these employees relate to allegations raised by the applicant which were found to be untimely as a result of a prior Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 177, documents pertaining to these individuals are not relevant to the matters remaining at issue in this proceeding.

4As stated in the prior Interim Decision, one of the issues in this proceeding relates to the ongoing filling of tool and die maker positions during the period from November 2004 to January 2005. The respondents have identified 19 individuals who were hired into these positions during this time period. These individuals are included in the list of individuals for which the applicant seeks production.

5The respondents state that they have already provided what documentation is available with respect to these individuals, given the passage of time. The documentation provided includes the Tool and Die Maker Certificates of Qualification for two of these individuals, and the Tool and Die Maker Certificates of Apprenticeship for two others. The respondents state that documentation regarding the other individuals hired into these positions during the relevant period is not available, and their qualifications will be addressed through oral evidence.

6While the documentation sought by the applicant regarding these 19 individuals is clearly relevant to the matters at issue in this proceeding, I cannot order the respondents to produce documentation which they say does not exist. Any issues as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the qualifications of the 15 individuals for whom documentation is not available will be assessed at the hearing.

7The applicant’s request for production is denied.