Shannon Wright v. Love Dhawan, 2011 HRTO 1047

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Shannon Wright Applicant

-and-

Love Dhawan Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: June 1, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1047 Indexed as: Wright v. Dhawan

Appearances

Shannon Wright, Applicant ) Natash Parsaud, Counsel Love Dhawan, Respondent ) Richard Macklin, Counsel

Interim Decision

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in employment. She also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2In essence, the applicant alleges that she was sexually harassed by the personal respondent. The respondent denies the allegations.

3On March 15, 2011, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("Request") seeking the production of documents relating to other, similar complaints allegedly filed by the applicant. The respondent wrote:

Richard Goldman, defence counsel to the Respondent in criminal charges laid by Shannon Wright (the "applicant/complainant"), that were withdrawn, has in his possession documents from the Crown brief pertaining to the complainant from the Toronto Police Service, detailing approximately fifty (50) criminal investigations, many of which have involved complaints of a sexual nature. The Respondent seeks to have such information put before the Tribunal.

4The applicant opposes the Request. She disputes making such complaints and, in any event, argues that whether or not she has made similar complaints to police is irrelevant to the issue raised in this Application.

5In an earlier Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 739, the Tribunal held that the documents in question are arguably relevant to the proceedings. It sought further written submissions from the parties on the following issues:

a. whether, considered in light of human rights principles, the probative value of the documents is outweighed by the potential prejudice to the party producing them; and

b. whether any privilege or immunity attaches to the documents sought in light of P.(D.) v. Wagg, 2002 CanLII 23611 (ON S.C.D.C.), 2004 CanLII 39048 (ON CA) ("Wagg").

6The parties filed written submissions in response to the Interim Decision.

7Among other things, the applicant questions whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order production of the Crown Brief. She also notes that the screening process established in Wagg affords the Crown and the Toronto Police Services an opportunity to address the proposed disclosure.

8The respondent states that he has communicated with the Crown and the Toronto Police Services and has provided each of them with a sealed copy of the documents at issue. Neither party has formally advised of its position on the proposed disclosure.

9The Tribunal held a brief telephone conference call on May 31, 2011. The parties agreed to the following procedure for addressing the respondent's request for production:

a. the respondent will provide the Tribunal with contact information for the Crown and the Toronto Police Services;

b. a copy of this Interim Decision will be delivered to the Crown and the Toronto Police Services by the Tribunal;

c. within three weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the Crown and the Toronto Police Services will advise the Tribunal and the parties of their position regarding the proposed disclosure; and

d. the Tribunal may schedule a further telephone conference hearing to hear submissions from the parties and, if necessary, from the Crown and the Toronto Police Services regarding the proposed disclosure.