Bahareh Norouzian v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto, 2012 HRTO 2079

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Bahareh Norouzian Applicant

-and-

Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2198 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: October 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2079 Indexed as: Norouzian v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Bahareh Norouzian, Applicant Self-represented

Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto, Respondent Frances Gallop, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2189, Intervenor No submissions

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 colour, place of origin, age and reprisal.

2At a summary hearing held in this matter, the applicant indicated that she does not intend to pursue her claim of discrimination on the ground of colour.

3Following the summary hearing in this matter, a number of the applicant’s allegations were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success and an interim decision directed that certain of the applicant’s allegations continue in the Tribunal’s process. The matters continuing in this process are as described in the interim decision Norouzian v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Greater Toronto 2012 HRTO 435.

4The applicant has now filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP), in which she seeks production of certain documentation.

5The respondent has filed a response to the RFOP, in which it indicates no objection to producing one of the documents requested, provided it can be found. It also indicates that certain of the documentation requested no longer exists and it objects to the request for production of the remaining documentation on the ground that it is not arguably relevant to the issues before the Tribunal.

DECISION

6For the reasons that follow, with respect to the contested documents, the applicant’s request for production of that documentation is denied.

ANALYSIS

7The applicant seeks production of the following documentation:

• Copies of the emails contained in her email account at the respondent, including emails found in the “Inbox”, “Sent” and “Deleted” folders, from September 2009 to April 2010.
• A copy of the applications submitted by an employee for the following positions: Shelter Support Worker; Immigration/Refugee Counsellor and Relief position
• A copy of the applications submitted by a second employee for the following positions: Shelter Support Worker; Housing Support Worker and Relief position.
• A copy of Ruth Crammond’s notes regarding a meeting with Carla Neto, Ruth Crammond and the applicant.

8In explaining the reasons for her request, she stated that “[t]hese documents endorse my claim in my application, which I do not have the privilege to have access to these documents because they are in the respondent’s possession”.

9In its Response to the RFOP the respondent submits that the applicant has not established that her emails are relevant, and in any event state that they no longer have the requested emails as the account was deleted in 2010.

10The respondent agreed that if the above-referenced notes of Ruth Crammond can be located, they may be arguably relevant. It does not object to producing that documentation, providing it can be found.

11With regard to the request for job applications by two employees, the respondent submits that they are not relevant. It argues that she seeks documentation relating to positions about which she has not made allegations of discrimination, and that documentation is therefore not arguably relevant in this Application. Additionally, though the applicant did allege that she was not granted the position of Housing Counsellor in May, 2010, due to reprisal, the respondent indicates that the second employee named by the applicant was not successful in that competition either, making her application for that position irrelevant in these proceedings. Finally, it submits that the other documentation, which relates to the applications for Relief positions, is not arguably relevant as the respondent ceased to assign Relief work to the applicant due to performance concerns.

12The respondent advises that the emails requested by the applicant no longer exist. In these circumstances, the applicant’s request for these emails is dismissed.

13In her Application, the applicant alleges that she was not awarded the position of Housing Counsellor in May, 2010, due to reprisal. Though in her Reply she alludes to a job application she made in April 2009 for Immigration/Refugee specialist, she states that the 2009 position was unfairly awarded to someone else, but she makes no allegations of discrimination contrary to the Code regarding positions as Shelter Support Workers or Immigration/Refugee Counsellor. Accordingly, it is not evident that job applications for the positions of Shelter Support Worker of Immigration/Refugee Counsellor are arguably relevant to this Application and her request for such documentation is denied.

14Though the applicant has alleged that she was denied the position of Housing Counsellor in May 2010, as the second named employee was also unsuccessful in that competition, it is not evident that the second named employee’s application for the position is arguably relevant to this Application. Accordingly, the request for a copy of her application for the position of Housing Counsellor is denied.

15In her Application, the applicant stated that she was advised she would not be given Relief work at the shelter site and she alleged that this was due to reprisal. The respondent alleges that she was not assigned further Relief work at the shelter due to performance concerns. In these circumstances, it is not evident that anyone else’s application for Relief work with the respondent would be arguably relevant to the issue of reprisal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, her request is denied.

ORDER

• The respondent is directed to undertake a search for copy of Ruth Crammond’s notes regarding a meeting with Carla Neto, Ruth Crammond and the applicant and to make production of such documentation, if it is located, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
• The remaining requests for production of documentation are dismissed.

16I am not seized.