Peggy Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board, 2012 HRTO 2377

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peggy Harrypersad Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1628 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2377 Indexed as: Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peggy Harrypersad, Applicant Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Respondent Roy Filion, 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 ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin and race. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceeding filed by the applicant seeking the production of documents.

2This case concerns in large part a job competition. The applicant seeks the following documents:

a. Names of Applicants for the position b. Interview Applications c. Interview Questions d. Interview Panel Notes (Administration Notes) e. Formal Offer f. Feedback Notes for all Applicants

3The respondents submit that in their list of arguably relevant documents delivered to the applicant pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules, they provided amongst other things:

a. Applications submitted by the applicant and the successful candidate b. References submitted by the applicant and the successful candidate c. Interview questions and notes taken by the Principal and Vice-Principal for the applicant and the successful candidate

4The respondents submit that there were no feedback notes for any of the applicants for the position. The respondents state they are prepared to determine whether or not a formal offer was made to the successful candidate and provide a copy of this material if it exists.

5The respondents argue that given the passage of time, it is unlikely that the names and interview notes for the other ten candidates for the position are available. The respondents also argues that the applicant has provided no reason why such material would be arguably relevant.

6The applicant has not indicated in her request why the additional material in relation to the other unsuccessful candidate is arguably relevant and I am not satisfied that it is necessary that these materials be produced at this stage of the proceeding and the applicant’s Request is to that extent dismissed.

7The respondents have agreed to produce a formal offer if one was made to the successful candidate and should do so if such a document exists. The parties can speak to its relevance at the hearing.

8I am not seized of this case.