Y.L. v. C-Squared, 2012 HRTO 1078

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Y.L.

Applicant

-and-

C-Squared, Andy To and Joe (Anh Chau) To

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 30, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1078

Indexed as: Y.L. v. C-Squared

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Y.L., Applicant

Allison Greene, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on November 26, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, sexual solicitation or advances and reprisal. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ Request for Order during Proceedings (“the Request”).

2The applicant was an employee of the organizational respondent from November 16, 2009 to May 19, 2010. The personal respondent, Andy To owns the organizational respondent and the personal respondent, Joe To, is the organizational respondent’s Store Manager. The applicant alleged that she was subject to sexual harassment and sexual solicitation throughout her employment with the organization respondent by both individual respondents. The applicant alleges that Joe To sexually assaulted her on May 19, 2010 after they had drinks together at a bar and states the police charged him with sexual assault (which charges were eventually dropped). The applicant alleges that she was forced to resign her employment when the organizational respondent refused to take measures to ensure her safety at work. The respondents deny any assault and assert that all interactions between the applicant and Joe To were consensual. The respondents deny all allegations against Andy To.

3The applicant filed the Request on March 21, 2012 seeking disclosure of the Crown brief relating to the criminal proceedings against Joe To. The respondents did not file a Response to Request for Order during Proceedings and the deadline for doing so has passed. In support of the Request, the applicant submits that Joe To is in possession of the Crown brief and that the brief contains videotape surveillance from the bar; the applicant’s statement to the police; Joe Toe’s statement to the police and the notes of the investigating officers, who interviewed at least one witness. The applicant submits that the documents contained in the Crown brief are relevant on the face of the Application and Response. The applicant notes that the alleged sexual assault forms a substantial part of the Application.

DECISION

4At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will generally order disclosure of arguably relevant documents, unless the documents are privileged or raise privacy concerns, see McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. “Arguable relevance” is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute. The contents of the Crown brief are obviously related to the alleged sexual assault, which is a central allegation in the Application, and may provide evidence regarding this incident. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Crown brief is arguably relevant and should be disclosed.

ORDER

5Within 7 days of the date of this decision, the individual respondent Joe To shall disclose to the applicant the entire contents of the Crown brief regarding the alleged sexual assault on May 19, 2010.