Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
A.D. Applicant
-and-
The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 14, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1688 Indexed as: A.D. v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
1The applicant alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin and reprisal by the respondent, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is the father of children who are in the care of the respondent. He alleges that his interactions with the respondent are influenced by his race, ancestry and ethnic origin, and that when he complained about this, he was subject to reprisal. The respondent has filed a Response denying the allegation.
2This Application is scheduled for hearing on January 18, 19 and 20th, 2012, in Toronto. The Tribunal is in receipt of numerous correspondences between the parties with respect to pre-hearing disclosure. This Interim Decision addresses the issues raised by the parties.
3The Tribunal granted an extension of time to September 1, 2011, for the parties to deliver to each other all arguably relevant documents with respect to this Application.
4The respondent’s counsel, due to the large number of documents being disclosed, couriered its pre-hearing disclosure to the Applicant’s home address on September 2, 2011. Though he has not filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, by email correspondence, the applicant is requesting a “ruling from the HRTO” as to whether “her submission should be allowed” given this one day delay. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the one day delay in receiving the the respondent’s pre-hearing production and therefore, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to grant any relief for this extremely short delay.
5In the same correspondence, it also appears that the applicant is asking the Tribunal to order production of documents in the respondent’s possession and/or control which are arguably relevant to this case. However, it does not appear that the applicant has reviewed the documents that the respondent sent to him since counsel for the respondent asserts that “the entirety of her disclosure are documents that are requested by the Applicant”.
6Further, it appears in earlier correspondence that the respondent was not able to access some of the applicant’s electronic documents, and it is unclear whether these issues have been resolved between the parties.
7However, in regard to the material before me, the Tribunal makes the following directions:
a. The Tribunal denies the applicant’s Request not to accept the documents sent to him on September 2, 2011, on the basis that their delivery was a day late. The Tribunal directs the applicant to review those documents and, if he believes the respondent has still not produced all arguably relevant documents, he may file a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking further production, no later than September 30, 2011; and
b. If he has not already done so, the applicant must provide the documents ostensibly produced in accordance with Rule 16.1 to the respondents in a readable format, within one week of this Interim Decision.
8Given the volume of documents which may be filed by each party on December 9, 2011, the Tribunal encourages the parties to try to file, if possible, a joint book of common documents to be relied on at the hearing by the parties.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of September, 2011.
”signed by”___________
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair