Francisco Pareja v. OE Quality Friction, 2011 HRTO 1996

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Francisco Pareja

Applicant

-and-

OE Quality Friction, Bryan Watts and Robert Lee

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: November 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1996

Indexed as: Pareja v. OE Quality Friction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceeding (Form 10) seeking production of documents from the respondents and to request the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to address the applicant’s allegation that he was discriminated against on the basis of his “creed.”

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

2The applicant filed his Application on May 11, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of family status and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant filed his Request for production on July 7, 2011, before the respondents had a chance to file their Response. The respondents filed a Response to the Request for Order (Form 11) opposing the Request.

3In the Request the applicant seeks extensive production of documents from the respondents on the basis that the information sought will demonstrate the “Companies History of shady requests/actions.” The respondents oppose the Request on the basis that the request is premature, overbroad and some of the information sought is irrelevant.

4Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s current Rules of Procedure set out rules for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case.

5Under the new Rules, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances, such as where a respondent is unable to file a Response or the applicant is not able to ascertain the identity or contact information for a proposed respondent. The applicant has not any identified exceptional circumstances in this case.

6The applicant’s Request for production at this stage is denied as premature.

SUBMISSIONS ON JURISDICTION

7The Application and Request for Order raise a further issue on which the Tribunal requires the parties to provide submissions, namely whether the ground of “creed” is properly raised by this matter.

8In his Form 1A, the applicant describes his creed as “I belief [sic] in being truthful.” He states that he believes that that he was discriminated against on the basis of that creed because he was “forced by the controller, through a written request, to lie and modify invoice dates.” In his response to Section 8 (“What Happened”) of his Application, the applicant alleges, in particular, that he “was instructed to modify invoices to benefit companies books, in writing and against my better judgment.”

9It would appear that the Request for production is largely based on the applicant’s desire to demonstrate these alleged “shady requests/actions” rather than discrimination on the basis of family status.

10This Tribunal has held that what identifies a “creed” within the meaning of the Code is a set of sincerely held religious beliefs and practices. These beliefs and practices need not be based on the edicts of an established church or particular denomination (Huang v. 1233065 Ontario Inc. (No. 2), 2006 HRTO 1; Heintz v. Christian Horizons 2008 HRTO 22).

11The Tribunal has adopted the Supreme Court of Canada’s test in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem 2004 SCC 47, finding that religious beliefs are those that have “a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith”.

12The applicant is required to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction (power) to deal with his allegations on the basis of his creed by December 8, 2011. Specifically, the applicant is directed to deliver written submissions explaining how the allegation in his Application concerning the modification of invoices relates to discrimination on the basis of creed. The respondents may provide written response submissions by December 15, 2011.

ORDER

13In summary, I have made the following orders/directions:

a. The applicant’s Request for production is denied;

b. The applicant is required to deliver written submissions to the Tribunal and counsel for the respondents on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with allegation of discrimination on the basis of creed by December 8, 2011; and

c. The respondents may deliver to the Tribunal and the applicant written response submissions on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with the allegation of discrimination on the basis of creed by December 15, 2011.

14I am not seized of this matter.