Fawad Ahmed v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, 2012 HRTO 2386

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fawad Ahmed

Applicant

-and-

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: December 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2386 Indexed as: Ahmed v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Fawad Ahmed, Applicant Self-represented

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, Respondent Karl Scholz, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin, creed, citizenship, ethnic origin and gender identity.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant, who was employed for several years by the respondent, alleges that he was denied training opportunities and promotions because he is a Muslim man from Pakistan. The applicant alleges that the discrimination increased to the point where he was forced to resign. The respondent denies the allegations.

NOVEMBER 18, 2012 REQUEST FOR ORDER

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on November 18, 2012 (“the November Request”) seeking an order from the Tribunal that will “restrain the respondendant [sic] and their employees to further damage my career.” The basis for which the applicant seeks such an order is that he believes that the respondent and individual employees “have the potential to severely damage [his] professional reputation by false accusations and blatant lies.” He argues that they are resorting to lies and fabrications as is allegedly evident from the contents of the Response which he disputes, and a remark of a director that a colleague allegedly told the applicant: namely, that the people still employed with the respondent could affect the applicant’s career.

4The respondent denies that it has any interest in damaging the applicant’s career, and opposes the November Request because the applicant is basing it on generalities.

5I note that the applicant provides no evidence that any negative statements about him have been made to an outside party by the respondent or its employees, and no evidence that any employment endeavours have been affected by the respondent. I therefore deny the November Request.

DECEMBER 3 AND DECEMBER 6, 2012 REQUESTS FOR ORDERS

6The applicant sent to the Tribunal a Request for Order During Proceedings dated Saturday, December 1, 2012. It is therefore not considered to be filed until December 3, 2012. He also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings dated December 5, 2012 at 10:56 p.m. It is therefore not considered to be filed until December 6, 2012. These December Requests both seek an order that the respondent produce documents that the applicant believes will strengthen his case. The applicant submits that he needs the documents to be produced now to prevent the respondent from destroying or falsifying them, but there is no evidence that the respondent would do such a thing.

7The respondent’s counsel is away on a medical leave of absence and the respondent therefore seeks an extension to respond to the December Requests. The applicant opposes any extension.

8Under its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but 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. The applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstances in this case.

9The applicant’s December Requests for production are denied at this stage as premature because the Tribunal has not yet issued a Notice of Hearing to trigger the production requirements of Rules 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. There is consequently no need to address the respondent’s request for an extension. If the respondent does not produce documents that the applicant seeks pursuant to Rule 16 after a Notice of Hearing has been issued, then he may file another Request for Order During Proceedings at that time. If the respondent claims after a Notice of Hearing has been issued that it no longer has the documents being sought by the applicant, the applicant may argue that it had notice of their relevance in his November and December Requests and should have preserved them.

NEXT STEPS

10The November Request and the December Requests have been denied. The Application and the Response indicate that the parties are willing to try mediation to resolve the Application. The Tribunal will therefore proceed to schedule mediation.

11I am not seized.