Hayes v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 1255

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daryle Hayes

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: June 27, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1255

Indexed as: Hayes v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daryle Hayes, Applicant ) David Ingraham, ) Representative

Workplace Safety and ) Gurjit Brar, Counsel

Insurance Board, Respondent )

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of goods, services or facilities.

2The applicant receives loss of earnings benefits from the respondent, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB"). He alleges that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his disability because it refused to deposit his benefits directly into his bank account.

3The Tribunal held a summary hearing, following which it dismissed the Application in part: 2011 HRTO 2152. I held that the Application could proceed on the following issue only:

Did the respondent's failure to provide direct deposit services to the applicant amount to constructive discrimination or otherwise discriminate against him on the basis of disability because the applicant did not have the same access to benefits as injured workers whose mobility is not limited?

4A merits hearing has been scheduled in this matter for October 19, 2012.

5On May 13, 2012, the applicant's representative filed a Request for an order During Proceedings ("Request") seeking production of "all statistics concerning those individuals who were in receipt of direct deposits prior to October 2012". The applicant states that this information is important to assist him in showing constructive discrimination.

6The respondent has filed a Response to the Request in which it objects to the production sought. It states that the applicant seeks "all statistics", which is vague and unduly broad and would likely result in the disclosure of information that is not arguably relevant to this proceeding. In any event, the respondent states that the Request does not refer to any documents and that the applicant has not established a connection between the information sought and the remaining issues in the Application.

ANALYSIS

7Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure contemplate the disclosure of all arguably relevant documents. As the Tribunal indicated in Lampi v. Princess House Products Canada Inc., 2008 HRTO 1, this is not a very high threshold and the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and the issues in dispute before the Tribunal.

8In the earlier Interim Decision, I wrote the following about the applicant's arguments regarding "undue hardship":

The applicant's argument on this issue is somewhat difficult to make out. As I understand it, he argues that, because his disability limits his mobility, he does not have access to benefits in the same way or to the same extent as other injured workers whose injuries do not limit their mobility. While the applicant and his representatives use the term "undue hardship", the substance of the applicant's argument appears to actually be about equal access to benefits.

9In light of my earlier Interim Decision and the portions of the Application that it dismissed, it is not clear to me that statistical information about direct deposit services offered to other individuals is arguably relevant to the remaining issue in the Application. Rather, the thrust of the remaining issue is whether, because the applicant states that his disability prevented him from attending at a bank and effectively accessing benefits paid to him by the respondent, there is discrimination under the Code. I am not satisfied that any information related to others' use of direct deposit services is arguably relevant to this issue.

DECISION

10The applicant's Request is denied. I am not satisfied that the information sought is relevant to the remaining issue in this Application.

11I am not seized of this matter.