HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Norman Pakeman
Applicant
-and-
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Pakeman v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586
1The hearing into this Application is scheduled to resume on August 31 and September 2, 2011.
2In a Case Assessment Direction issued July 28, 2010 and before the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with his Rule 16 and 17 disclosure obligations. No medical documentation has been filed by the applicant pertaining to disability and this was the subject of some discussion at the commencement of the hearing in August 2010.
3The respondent has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated July 28, 2011 requesting production of documents. Specifically, the respondent requests production of the following:
(i) All hospital, medical, and other clinical records in connection with the applicant’s May 2008 injury and all such records in connection with his prognosis, treatment and rehabilitation.
(ii) All records in connection with the applicant’s attendance at Carleton University including all records submitted as part of his application for admission.
(iii) All income tax returns and Notices of Assessment for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010; and all financial statements and tax returns (and Notices of Assessment) for Eastern Valley Energy Solutions Inc., Pakeman Electric and Eastern Valley Group and any other company operated or owned by the applicant.
4The applicant has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed. The RFOP contains some communication between counsel on the production issues, with the last communication from applicant counsel dated September 24, 2010 and the last communication from respondent counsel dated November 17, 2010.
5The respondent submits that the requested documentation is relevant to the issues in the hearing and evidence that the applicant has given. I find that the documentation requested is arguably relevant, and order production of it as set out below.
Medical Documentation
6The applicant testified that in May 2008 he was the victim of an assault while in Alberta for which he was in a coma and hospitalized. He testified that he experienced brain trauma and hearing loss as a result of the assault. He testified about his interactions with the respondent in or around May 2008 before he left for Alberta, and then in or around July and August 2008 when he returned from Alberta. He testified about addictions from which he suffered and some of the treatment that he sought for addiction. His Application is based upon disability in relation to the assault while he was in Alberta in May 2008 and may also be based upon having an addiction.
7Attached to the RFOP were copies of some medical documentation that the applicant disclosed to the respondent after the hearing commenced. The applicant has not disclosed any medical documents to the Tribunal for the purposes of establishing a disability based upon an addiction, treatment(s) for addiction, or being hospitalized in Alberta. The Tribunal understands that the existence of a disability may be an issue for the respondent. In the absence of a Response to the RFOP being filed by the applicant, I find that the medical documentation requested by the respondent is arguably relevant. Accordingly, I order the applicant to disclose the information requested in (i) above to the respondent, and deliver it to the respondent and file with the Tribunal immediately.
University Documentation
8During the applicant’s evidence, he testified that in or around August 2008 a doctor told him that he should attend university to determine the extent, if any, of brain injury and that he was a university student from September 2008 onwards. He testified that it was upon taking a human rights course at Carleton University that he decided to file his Application.
9The respondent submits that the university documentation is relevant because of the applicant’s testimony and because of his loss of wages claim.
10I find it is arguably relevant. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to immediately deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal the documentation requested in (ii) above.
Financial Documentation
11In the Application, as a remedy, the applicant seeks loss of wages of one year in the amount of $81,000. At the hearing he testified that this amount was based upon what he earned in previous years, along with pension contributions. At issue still is whether the one year commences in 2008 or 2009, and in light of that uncertainty I direct that the applicant deliver immediately to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal the documentation requested in (iii) above.
12If the applicant fails to produce the documentation that the Tribunal has ordered him to produce, at the hearing, the Tribunal will hear submissions from the parties on the consequences, if any, of the applicant’s failure to produce.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of August, 2011.
”signed by”________
Alison Renton
Vice-chair