HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Altus Lewis
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Transit Commission, John Iorio, Joann Briffa and Bob Thacker
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Lewis v. Toronto Transit Commission
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Altus Lewis, Applicant
Charles Roach, Counsel
Toronto Transit Commission, Bob Thacker, Joann Briffa and John Iorio, Respondents
Daryn M. Jeffries, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed 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 race, colour, place of origin and reprisal.
2In his Application, the applicant checked off boxes to indicate that he believes he was discriminated against in a job ad, in an application form, in a job interview, in his rate of pay, overtime, hours of work or holiday, in being denied a promotion, in discipline, in comments, displays, jokes, harassment or a poisoned work environment and in being denied a workplace opportunity. In the narrative of his Application, he made allegations dating back several years and also including being denied numerous positions at work up to 2011.
3The respondents have filed a Response, denying the allegations of discrimination contrary to the Code. In particular, they state that in his Application, the applicant has claimed discrimination in 12 job competitions, and in addition to their narrative, they provide several Schedules, including Schedule “B” which lists and describes the relevance of certain documents, including documents relating to the job competitions referenced in the applicant’s narrative.
4The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on March 6, 2012, seeking disclosure from the respondents of all documents referred to by them in Schedule “B” to their Response. The applicant submitted that such disclosure was necessary in order for him to “make full answer in response to the Respondent’s Response”, as those documents relate to various job competitions.
5The respondents filed a Response to the RFOP, objecting to the applicant’s Request as premature. The respondents made reference to Rule 16.1 and cited previous Tribunal decisions Balloi v. Humber College, 2011 HRTO 2177, R.C. v. Smylie’s Independent Grocers, 2012 HRTO 427, Jagdeo v. Staples Advantage, 2012 HRTO 269, Zaromitidis v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 357, and Picard v. Chartrand, 2012 HRTO 313. The respondents also submitted that if the applicant is not able to respond fully to the Response, “he may reserve his right to reply to further issues that arise”.
6In his Application, it is the applicant who has alleged that he was unsuccessful in certain job competitions due to violations of the Code, and the respondents have made a Response to those allegations. Rule 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires an applicant “who intends to prove a version of the facts different from those set out in the Response” to deliver and file a Reply, “setting out the different version, unless it is already contained in the Application”. Further, the Reply “must deal only with new matters that are raised in the Response”. It is not evident that the applicant would require production of extensive documentation in order to be able to indicate where and how, with respect to any new issues, his version of events differs from the version of the respondents.
7The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure make provisions for the exchange of information regarding documentation prior to the hearing date. In particular, Rule 16 provides as follows:
16.1 Not later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):
a) a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession. Where a privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and,
b) a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.
16.2 Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, not later than (forty-five) 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):
a) a list of documents upon which the party intends to rely; and
b) a copy of each document on the list or confirmation that each document has already been provided to the other parties in accordance with Rule 16.1.
16.3 Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, not later than (forty-five) 45 days prior to the first scheduled day of hearing, each party must file with the Tribunal:
a) a list of documents upon which the party intends to rely; and
b) a copy of each document contained on the list.
16.4 No party may rely on or present any document not included on a document list and provided to other parties in accordance with Rule 16.1 and 16.2, and filed with the Tribunal under Rule 16.3, except with the permission of the Tribunal.
8While the Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, that is only in exceptional circumstances, such as where a respondent is unable to file a Response or the applicant is not able to ascertain the identity or contact information for a proposed respondent. I do not find that there are exceptional circumstances in this case which would warrant such an exercise of discretion.
9The applicant’s Request for an Order for production of documents is denied.
10The applicant is directed to deliver and file his Reply within 14 days of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of July, 2012.
“Signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair