Humphries v. General Motors of Canada Limited, 2011 HRTO 353

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Heather Humphries

Applicant

-and-

General Motors of Canada Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: February 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 353

Indexed as: Humphries v. General Motors of Canada

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s further request for production.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order dated January 23, 2011, seeking production of her historical employee information sheets from the employee information system of the respondent company from her date of hire on May 31, 2004 to the present, her medical file from May 31, 2004 to the present, and her personal employee file from May 31, 2004 to the present.

3As I stated in my previous Interim Decision in this matter dated November 17, 2010 (2010 HRTO 2260), there are two issues before me in this proceeding: (1) whether the applicant experienced discrimination because of her sex in relation to men being placed in Tool & Die positions during the period from November 2004 to July 2005; and (2) whether the applicant experienced reprisal due to discipline imposed in May 2005 and February 2006, which she alleges was due to her having pursued internal human rights complaints at the respondent company.

4I agree with the respondents that the applicant has failed to establish the arguable relevance of the documents sought to the matters at issue in this proceeding. The applicant states that the historical employee information sheets will show her job status and pay per hour over the years. This historical information is not relevant to the matters at issue before me. The applicant states that her medical file will show her physical abilities. This material is not relevant as no allegation is raised before me by either party regarding the applicant’s physical abilities in relation to the position at issue. The applicant states that her personal employee file will show her job applications, discipline and “resolves”. The only jobs relevant to this proceeding are the Tool & Die positions filled during the period from November 2004 to July 2005, and there is no basis before me to indicate that all existing documentation that is arguably relevant to the filling of these positions has not already been produced. With regard to discipline and “resolves”, the only discipline at issue before me is that imposed on the applicant in May 2005 and February 2006, and once again there is no basis before me to indicate that all documentation that is arguably relevant to this discipline has not already been produced.

5As a result, the applicant’s request for production is denied.