HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Linda Duhault
Applicant
- and-
Gap (Canada) Inc. and Anthony Khan
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Duhault v. Gap (Canada) Inc.
wRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Linda Duhault, Applicant ) Elise Hallewick, Counsel
Gap (Canada) Inc, )
Corporate Respondent ) Meighan Ferris-Miles,
) Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status and marital status.
2The applicant has filed with the Tribunal, a Request for Order During Proceedings, in which she seeks an order that the corporate respondent provide the last known address for the personal respondent, Anthony Khan. She also seeks an order for production of documents and for particulars. By way of particulars, broadly stated, she seeks information relating to the employment history of the personal respondent and by way of documentation, she seeks copies of her employment file, the personal respondent’s employment file, copies of any complaints made about the personal respondent by employees of the corporate respondent, copies of all written policies in place at the corporate respondent and “details of the chain of command” at the corporate respondent. Further, she seeks an extension of the time for filing her Reply to the respondent’s Response on the grounds that she has moved out of the province and is caring for her mother, who is ill.
3The corporate respondent has filed a response to the applicant’s request, indicating that it consents to providing the last known address for the individual respondent Anthony Khan and that it takes no position with respect to the applicant’s request for an extension of time to file her Reply. With regard to the applicant’s request for production, it takes the position that the request is premature and/or that the documents requested are not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute. With regard to her request for particulars, it takes the position that its Response is sufficiently detailed in that it provides answer to her Application and is not so lacking that it prevents her from filing a meaningful Reply.
REQUEST FOR PARTICULARS AND PRODUCTION
4The applicant has not taken the position that she has deficient information to file a Reply. There is nothing to indicate that the respondent’s Response is so lacking that the applicant cannot provide a meaningful Reply to the respondent’s allegations and in fact, her request for an extension to file her Reply makes no mention of any such deficiencies.
5I find that the applicant’s request for particulars and production is premature. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure make provisions for the exchange of information regarding documentation and witnesses prior to the hearing date. In particular, Rules 16 and 17 provide as follows:
16.1 Not later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):
a) a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession. Where a privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and,
b) a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.
16.2 Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, not later than (forty-five) 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):
a) a list of documents upon which the party intends to rely; and
b) a copy of each document on the list or confirmation that each document has already been provided to the other parties in accordance with Rule 16.1.
16.3 Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, not later than (forty-five) 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing, each party must file with the Tribunal:
a) a list of documents upon which the party intends to rely; and
b) a copy of each document contained on the list.
16.4 No party may rely on or present any document not included on a document list and provided to other parties in accordance with Rule 16.1 and 16.2, and filed with the Tribunal under Rule 16.3, except with the permission of the Tribunal.
17.1 Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, not later than (forty-five) 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing, each party must deliver a witness list to every other party and file it with the Tribunal, along with a Statement of Delivery. The witness list must include the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, the party intends to present to the Tribunal.
17.2 The witness list must include a brief statement summarizing each witness’ expected evidence.
17.3 A copy of an expert witness’ written report, or full summary of proposed evidence, and curriculum vitae must accompany the witness list.
17.4 No party may present a witness whose name and summary of evidence was not included in a witness list and delivered and filed in accordance with Rules 17.1 and 17.2 or present an expert witness if material has not been delivered and filed in accordance with Rule 17.3, except with the permission of the Tribunal.
6Once the parties have complied with their disclosure obligations according to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant may file a new request for particulars and/or production following the disclosure process described by Rules 16 and 17.
DECISION
7The Tribunal makes the following orders:
a. The corporate respondent will provide to the applicant its last known address for the personal respondent Anthony Khan within 7 days from the date of this Interim Decision.
b. The applicant is granted an extension of time for filing her Reply and such Reply shall be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision.
c. The applicant’s request for production and particulars is denied.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11^th^ day of July, 2011.
“Signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair