Michael LeBlanc v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2011 HRTO 1382

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Michael LeBlanc Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 22, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1382 Indexed as: LeBlanc v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This is an Application filed on December 7, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order During Proceeding filed by the respondent on May 10, 2011, to set new hearing dates and for documentary disclosure (the “Request”). The applicant did not file a Response to a Request for Order (Form 11).

2The Tribunal scheduled this matter for hearing on August 24 and 25, 2011. Based on these dates, the Tribunal also established deadlines for disclosure pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 or the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “original deadlines”). On July 5, 2011, the Tribunal rescheduled the hearing for September 28 and 29, 2011, pursuant to the respondent’s Request, to which the applicant agreed. The Tribunal established new disclosure deadlines based on the new hearing dates, the first of which – disclosure of arguably relevant documents – arises on July 26, 2011 (the “new deadlines”).

3The respondent also seeks in the Request production of documents including, in particular, medical and clinical notes from 2000 to the present. The respondent submitted that, based on the original deadlines, the applicant had not complied with Rule 16.1, which requires the disclosure of arguably relevant documents.

4Ironically, the respondent’s success in having the hearing rescheduled renders the Request for disclosure premature. Under the new deadlines, the applicant does not have to disclose anything until July 26, 2011; therefore, the Request for disclosure is premature. However, the respondent may file a new request for production following the disclosure process under Rule 16 should it believe that the applicant possesses documents arguably relevant to the issues in the Application that he has not produced.

5The date for disclosure of arguably relevant documents is fast approaching. Therefore, I note that the applicant’s medical condition is a central issue in this matter. The applicant alleges the respondent discriminated against him because of disability. The respondent denies any discrimination and alleges the applicant was dishonest regarding his absences and ability to perform work. The Tribunal has found medical information to be arguably relevant and ordered applicants to disclose it in similar cases.

6The Request for production is denied at this time. In an effort to expedite the process, the respondent may write to the Registrar to renew the Request for production if, after July 26, 2011, it believes the applicant has not disclosed arguably relevant documents. As noted above, the Tribunal has already granted the respondent’s request for the rescheduling of the hearing to September 28 and 29, 2011.