Jay Biswas v. Canadian National Institute for the Blind, 2010 HRTO 567

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jay Biswas Applicant

-and-

Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Anita Assenza, Sharon Flashford, Paulette Kinmond and Pamela MacLellan Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: March 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 567 Indexed as: Biswas v. Canadian National Institute for the Blind

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dated June 24, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on October 3, 2007.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request for production, for an extension of time to file his witness list and will say statements, and for an adjournment of the hearing date currently scheduled for March 19, 2010. This Interim Decision also will address the respondents’ request for an extension of time to file their witness list and will say statements.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order on February 26, 2010 seeking a production order requiring the respondents to provide “all internal communications either by way of typed copy, fax or email or in any other form to or from any of the named respondents or current or past executives, officers, managers or employees of the corporate respondent involved in the determination and or approval and authorization of the extension of the applicant’s probation and termination of the applicant as well as any notes of individuals or minutes of meetings, formal or informal, for the 6 week period prior to and for 1 week period after the termination of the applicant”.

4The respondents had 14 days to file a Response to the Request for Order, which would have been by March 12, 2010, but failed to do so. The respondents filed their Request for Order seeking an extension to file their list of witnesses and will say statements on March 1, 2010, the day that this material was due.

5The material sought by the applicant is clearly relevant to the matters at issue in this Application, and should already have been disclosed by the respondents in accordance with their obligation to disclose all arguably relevant documents pursuant to the Rules. To the extent that any of the requested documents have not already been disclosed, the respondents are ordered forthwith and in any event by no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 17, 2010 to make disclosure to the applicant of any and all communications relevant to the determination, approval and authorization of the extension of the applicant’s probation and/or termination of the applicant’s employment.

6All parties have sought an extension to the March 1, 2010 deadline for filing their lists of witnesses and will say statements. This deadline clearly has already passed. But in my view, the production issue is not any reason or excuse for having failed to file this material in accordance with the Tribunal’s deadlines. The parties to an application are not free to file a Request for Order on the eve of or at the deadline seeking an extension, and then presume not to comply with the Tribunal’s Rules. Neither the witnesses nor what they may be expected to say should change significantly as a result of any further production the respondents may need to make.

7In the circumstances, the parties are directed to file their lists of witnesses, statements of anticipated evidence and all documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing by no later than Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 1:00 p.m.

8The hearing will proceed as scheduled on Friday, March 19, 2010 commencing at 9:30 a.m. There is at present no sufficient reason to grant the adjournment requested by the applicant. If any further production by the respondents is so extensive and significant as to materially affect the conduct of this proceeding, the parties may raise the issue before the adjudicator at the hearing.