Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Darrell Callwood Applicant
-and-
Franchise Management Inc. o/a 1726496 Ontario Inc. and Angelo Ianiri Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: January 28, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 200 Indexed as: Callwood v. 1726496 Ontario
1This is an Application filed April 27, 2009 under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated in employment by the respondents on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin and creed. In particular, he alleges that he was arbitrarily demoted in March 2009 from the position of Assistant Manager to shift manager and terminated in April 2010.
2A hearing is scheduled for February 22 and 23, 2011. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant's Request for Order During Proceeding ("RFOP") seeking production, an exemption for the requirement to provide a list of witnesses, and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing. The respondents did not file a Response to the RFOP.
Production Requests
3In the RFOP, he noted that the respondents had disclosed only 18 documents in contrast to the 3000 pages produced by the applicant. The applicant asserts that the respondents have not complied with their obligation to disclose all arguably relevant documents, including but not limited to Champs Moment of Truth Report, Pizza Hut Weekly Crew schedule, and Customer Opportunity Reports emails. Further, the applicant requested production of Champs Moment of Truth Reports and Customer Opportunity Reports for the past three years for every Pizza Hut location currently owned and operated by the corporate respondent. The applicant asserts that these documents are essential and germane to the action before the Tribunal.
4At this stage, I am not satisfied that the applicant's Request for production should be granted. The Request is overly broad and the applicant has not set out any particulars why the requested documents are relevant to the issues in this hearing. In my view, the most fair, just and expeditious method of procedure is to commence the hearing and hear the evidence of the proposed witnesses. At that stage, I will hear further from the applicant if he continues to assert the need for further production and make any required orders at that time. The applicant should be prepared to provide a detailed explanation why each requested document is arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.
Exemption from disclosing witness names and statements of proposed evidence
5The applicant has not provided a list of witnesses or a statement of their proposed evidence. The applicant asserts that this requirement poses a threat to the potential witnesses' employment security and exposes them to potential reprisal.
6I see no basis for exempting the applicant from the Tribunal's Rules. The Code prohibits any person from taking action in reprisal against a person who participates in a human rights proceedings. If a witness faces consequences as a result of participating in our proceedings, there are options available to that person to seek redress through filing a human rights application.
7The applicant is ordered to immediately comply with his obligation to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal a witness list and statement of proposed evidence for each witness.
8The respondents have also not complied with its obligation in this respect. The respondent is also directed to immediately deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal a list of witnesses and a statement of their proposed evidence.
9The consequence, if any, of the failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and this Interim Decision will be dealt with at the hearing.
10The Tribunal notes that the respondents have not delivered and filed the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing and the deadline for doing so under the Rules has passed. The respondents are directed to deliver the documents on which they intend to rely to the applicant and deliver them to the Tribunal immediately. The consequence of any failure to comply with the Tribunals' Rules and this Decision will be dealt with at the hearing.
11In light of my directions, the Request for adjournment is unnecessary and is denied.
Bifurcation of the Proceedings
12In light of the complexity of the evidence to be heard, I have exercised my discretion to separate this hearing into two parts. On February 22 and 23, 2011 I will hear the evidence relating to whether there has been a breach of the Code. Depending on the decision on that issue, the hearing may be reconvened to hear any evidence relating to remedy.
Dated at Toronto this 28th day of January 2011
"signed by"___________
Kaye Joachim Member