Lakis Parastatidis v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited, 2011 HRTO 330

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lakis Parastatidis

Applicant

-and-

Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: February 16, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 330

Indexed as: Parastatidis v. Ford Motor

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order filed by the respondent seeking production of any statement(s) given by the applicant to the Human Rights Officer during the investigation of the applicant’s complaint by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

2The applicant opposes the respondent’s request for three reasons. First, the applicant takes the position that any statement given to a Human Rights Officer forms part of the Commission’s role in attempting to investigate and resolve the applicant’s complaint as part of a conciliation process, and that nothing related to that investigation should be ordered produced or able to be relied upon in this proceeding. To the contrary, the Divisional Court has determined that the “fruits” of the Commission’s investigation, including investigation statements, are relevant and producible in the context of a proceeding before this Tribunal: Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Ontario (Board of Inquiry into Northwestern General Hospital) (1993) 1994 CanLII 10981 (ON CTGDDC), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 279 (Ont.Div.Ct.).

3Second, the applicant states that if he is required to produce the investigation statement that he gave to the Commission, then the respondent should be required to produce any statements given by its representatives to the Commission during its investigation. In reply, the respondent states that these statements already have been disclosed.

4Third, the applicant states that he did not provide a written statement to the Human Rights Officer, but rather the interview took place by telephone and there was no statement generated. As a result, the applicant states that he has no such statement in his possession. The respondent has filed a letter from the Human Rights Officer confirming that she conducted the applicant’s interview by phone, but stating that the applicant’s answers were reduced to writing in the form of a witness statement and that two copies of this witness statement were sent to the applicant’s legal counsel. The Human Rights Officer further states that she believes that she thereafter received a corrected and signed copy of the applicant’s witness statement.

5I am aware that requests have been made by both parties to the Commission for disclosure of the contents of the Commission’s file in accordance with s.53(7) of the Code. Nonetheless, the fact that a document may be obtainable from another source does not relieve a party from its primary obligation under the Rules to disclose all arguably relevant documents.

6Accordingly, if the applicant or his legal counsel have in their possession a copy of a draft witness statement sent by the Human Rights Officer or any other record created by the Commission of its telephone interview with the applicant and/or any corrected or signed copy of any such statement or record, then the applicant shall disclose any such document(s) to the respondent forthwith and in any event no later than 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

7Similarly, if the respondent or its legal counsel have in their possession a copy of any witness statements provided by its representatives to the Commission which have not already been produced to the applicant, then the respondent shall disclose any such document(s) to the applicant immediately and in any event no later than 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.