HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Emmanuel Sebastian
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Peel, Andrea Chiefari, Jason Marquez, Marcella Kowalchuk, Trinh Chu and Paul Callanan
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Sebastian v. The Regional Municipality of Peel
1This Application was filed on November 23, 2010 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents filed their Response on January 5, 2011. This matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on May 7, 8 and 9, 2012.
Request to amend
2The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend his Application (the “Request to amend”) on June 7, 2011 to include new allegations of discrimination.
3On June 25, 2011, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal to advise that they consented to the applicant’s Request to amend his Application.
4In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it is appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request to amend.
Request for Production
5The applicant also filed a Request for production of documents on March 8, 2012. Though the applicant lists a number of documents which he requests the respondents produce in advance of the hearing, he has not explained how these documents are related to and/or arguably relevant to the issues raised in his Application.
6The Tribunal has the power to order a party to produce any document that is arguably relevant to the proceeding. There must be some relevance and the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and issues in dispute before the Tribunal: Lampi v. Princess House Products Canada Inc., 2008 HRTO 1 at para. 8. Finding that documents are arguably relevant for production does not mean that such documentation will be admissible at a hearing: Lampi at para. 9.
Order
7Therefore, the Tribunal makes the following Orders:
a. The Application is amended to include the new allegations as set out in the applicant’s Request to amend;
b. The respondents, if they wish, may file an amended Response within fourteen days of the date of this Interim Decision;
c. The applicant within seven days from the date of this Interim Decision must file submissions to explain why the documents he is seeking in his Request for production of documents are arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application; and
d. The respondents will have ten days from the date of the receipt of the applicant’s submissions to deliver and file its Form 11, Response to an Order.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of March, 2012.
”signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair```