Shepherd v. York Catholic District School Board, 2010 HRTO 278

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jonathon Shepherd

Applicant

-and-

York Catholic District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: February 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 278

Indexed as: Shepherd v. York Catholic District School Board

1A Hearing in this matter is scheduled for February 19, 2010. The hearing was scheduled by Notice from the Tribunal, dated November 24, 2009. This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for production and an adjournment until after the production is provided. There is also a request to clarify the scope of the Application

The Scope of the Application

2The applicant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on January 19, 2007 alleging discrimination in employment with respect to family status and reprisal from September 2006 until the date of the complaint.

3The allegations relate to the applicant’s guardianship of a minor at a school with the respondent. At the time of the complaint, the applicant was also employed by an agency, Bartimaeus and dispatched as a student support worker to the same school where the minor attended.

4In late fall 2006, the respondent asked Bartimaeus to remove the applicant as the assigned student support worker at the school, which they did.

5On January 4, 2007, the applicant was advised by Bartimaeus that his assignment with the respondent was terminated.

6In his statement of additional facts filed December 21, 2009, the applicant raised allegations that post date the complaint. He alleges that he was charged with a criminal offence and that the respondent provided false and misleading information to the police.

7The transitional provisions of the Code are intended to deal with the subject matter of complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008. The allegations that post-date the complaint do not form part of the subject matter of the present Application.

Production Requests

8The deadline for the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents was December 21, 2009. On January 11, 2010, the respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of documents relating to the employment relationship between the applicant and Bartimaeus during 2006 and 2007, income tax information for 2006 and 2007, documentation relating to the criminal charges.

9In light of my ruling, the criminal charges do not form part of the subject matter of the Application and this request for production is moot.

10The applicant was required to respond to the Request within 14 days, but failed to do so. Instead, on February 1, 2010, the applicant advised that he did not have any documentation regarding his employment with Bartimaeus, but had requested the documentation from Bartimaeus, and would provide to the respondent when and if they received it.

11The applicant has advised that he is compiling the tax information. The applicant is directed to disclose immediately, within five days of the receipt of this Interim Decision, his 2006 and 2007 income tax records, including the underlying documents submitted and any notices of assessment received.

12The applicant has asserted that he is not in possession of any documentation from Bartimaeus and it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to order disclosure in the face of this assertion.

13This is an appropriate case to order a non-party, Bartimaeus to disclose the arguably relevant information. As Bartimaeus has not been given prior notice that this production may be made, they will have seven days from the date of this Interim Decision to file submissions on why the documents should not be disclosed or to provide the following documents:

• Any documentation regarding the relationship between Bartimaeus and the applicant during the years 2006 and 2007.

Adjournment

14As this stage, I am not satisfied that the hearing scheduled for February 19, 2010 should be adjourned. The Adjudicator will be a position to best determine whether the hearing can proceed or at lest commence, notwithstanding the timing of the production of the above documents.