Jaime Kern v. Human Resource Capital Group Inc. o/a Spherino Workforce Architects, 2010 HRTO 963

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jaime Kern

Applicant

-and-

Human Resource Capital Group Inc. o/a Spherino Workforce Architects, Scott MacPherson and Krista Drake

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 3, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 963

Indexed as: Kern v. Human Resource Capital Group

1This is an Application filed under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order during Proceeding (Request) filed by the applicant seeking the production of documents from the respondents – the hire/status report for the time period corresponding to the applicant’s parental leave, February 2005 to February 2006. The respondents did not file a Response to the Request (Form TR-5) as of this date.

3The applicant states that this documentation will clearly outline the respondent employer’s hire/transfer activities during the period of the applicant’s parental leave. The applicant states that she has reason to believe that, despite her requests, she was not made aware of suitable alternative employment during the relevant period.

4The allegations in the human rights complaint which forms the subject matter of this Application concern a lay-off beginning in late October 2004 and ending in late January 2005 which the applicant states was related to her having just announced her pregnancy to the respondent employer. The applicant also alleges that the position she was offered at the end of the lay-off was not suitable and was not offered to her in good faith – the applicant believes that the employer hoped that she would not take the position and as a result have no obligation to her upon her return from parental leave. Upon return from parental leave, the applicant appears to have resigned her employment in part at least because she was returned to the position held immediately prior to her leave.

5At this stage it appears that the kind of material sought by the applicant is arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application and should be produced, if such material exists or can be retrieved at this stage.

Order

6The organizational respondent will deliver to the applicant the hire/status report for the time period February 2005 to February 2006.

7I am not seized.