HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
A.D.
Applicant
-and-
Club Cranberry Vacations Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Date: November 4, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 2004
Indexed as: A.D. v. Club Cranberry Vacations Inc.
1This Interim Decision addresses the Request for an Order during Proceedings (Form 10) made by the respondent to request the production of documents from the applicant. I have received the applicant’s response to this respondent’s request (Form 11). A hearing has been scheduled in this matter for December 8 and 9, 2011.
2The respondent requests that the applicant produce a number of documents, most of which the applicant indicates she will provide. The documents are:
- Copies of the applicant’s tax returns for the years 2008 through 2010.
The applicant has agreed to provide these documents as well as her notices of assessment for 2008 through 2010.
- A copy of the Applicant’s passport showing all trips from March 2010 to the present.
The applicant has agreed to provide a copy of her passport entries for the period March 2010 to the present.
- Copies of any employment applications the applicant has made from March 2010 to the present.
The applicant states that she has not made any employment applications since March 2010.
- All records from any of the applicant’s treating physicians from 2007 to the present.
The applicant states she is not in the possession of the records of her treating physicians but that her family physician will be called as a witness. The applicant will also provide the respondent with the record of her admittance to the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre in October 2008 which, the applicant states, provides significant details of her medical condition and diagnosis.
- The applicant’s prescription summaries from 2007 to the present.
The applicant states that she has obtained a list of her prescriptions from 2007 to the present and will provide these to the respondent.
- The applicant’s OHIP summary from 2008 to the present.
The applicant states that she has applied to the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care for this summary and will provide it to the respondent when received.
- A list of all the occasions the applicant has travelled outside Collingwood Ontario since March 2010.
The applicant submits that a list of all occasions that she has travelled outside Collingwood is not relevant and notes that she will provide documentary evidence in the form of her passport to show that she has been outside of Canada twice since March 2010.
DECISION
3It appears the applicant has agreed to provide most of the documents requested by the respondent. The only production issues in dispute are in relation to the request for all records from any of the applicant’s treating physicians from 2007 to the present (Item #4) and a list of all the occasions the applicant has travelled outside of Collingwood, Ontario since March 2010 (Item #7).
4I am not prepared to grant the respondent’s requests for the production of these documents, at the present time. It appears that the respondent has not followed Rule 19.4(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which states:
Where the order requested is for production of a document(s) a copy of the party’s written request for the document(s) and the responding party’s response, if any, must be attached to the Form 10.
5The purpose of Rule 19.4(c) is, in part, to ensure that parties have an opportunity to clarify production issues before requests for disclosure are made to the Tribunal. In the present case the respondent may not have had to request many of the documents that it has given the applicant’s willingness to produce them. The parties may have also been able to more specifically identify what medical documentation the respondent wants disclosed. Because the parties have not conferred I do not know whether the applicant’s offer to disclose a document from the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre as well as her plan to call the applicant’s family physician as a witness meets the respondent’s stated interest in information to more clearly understand the nature and severity of the applicant’s disability. Under this circumstance it does not seem appropriate to order further production in respect of those documents.
6The respondent is directed to confer with the applicant pursuant to Rule 19(4)(c) if it wishes to renew a request for the production of further documents. This includes the respondent’s request for a list of all the occasions the applicant has travelled outside of Collingwood, Ontario since March 2010. Finally, I would note here, for the parties’ benefit, that if the applicant’s family physician intends to rely on the applicant’s medical file during testimony arguably relevant documents from this file need to be disclosed to the respondent. It is also noted that the discussion between the parties regarding the travel list request may be more productive if the respondent identifies why the respondent considers the information arguably relevant to the Application or the respondent’s Response.
Dated at Toronto this 4^th^ day of November, 2011
“signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair
NOTICE OF AMENDED DECISION:
This decision was amended on November 25, 2011 to provide for the anonymization of the applicant’s name, pursuant to decision issued November 25, 2011 in 2011 HRTO 2134.