Bartlett v. Hydro One Networks Inc., 2013 HRTO 1075

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tania-Joy Bartlett

Applicant

-and-

Hydro One Networks Inc., Stewart Smith, Jordan Varley, Kyle Clothier and Tom Stilling

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Skilled Workers

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: June 17, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1075 Indexed as: Bartlett v. Hydro One Networks Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tania-Joy Bartlett, Applicant

No Submissions

Hydro One Networks Inc., Respondent

R. Charney, Counsel

Stewart Smith, Kyle Clothier, Tom Stilling, Respondents

No Submissions

Jordan Varley, Respondent

No Submissions

Canadian Union of Skilled Workers, Intervenor

No Submissions

1The respondent Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) on May 14, 2013, in this ongoing matter. It seeks an order for production of documents and bases its request on the applicant’s testimony. Along with its RFOP, HONI filed a copy of its May 7, 2013 correspondence to counsel for the applicant, in which it requested production of the same documentation it now seeks by way of its RFOP. Also included in the RFOP was a copy of the May 10, 2013 response from counsel for the applicant in which he indicated that he was in the process of reviewing the request with his client and upcoming witness and anticipated being in a position to provide “any arguably relevant, non-privileged production in the next 1-2 weeks”.

2The Tribunal has received no Response from the applicant regarding HONI’s request and the time for filing a Response has now passed.

3It is not clear whether production of the documentation continues to be an outstanding issue between the parties.

4Among other items, the respondent seeks “Any and all correspondence sent or received by Mr. Abe MacKay in relation to the email dated March 3, 2011 titled “Cussing at Work”. It is evident that based on the applicant’s testimony, a subset of that correspondence, being correspondence between the applicant and Mr. Abe MacKay in relation to the email dated March 3, 2011 titled “Cussing at Work”, is arguably relevant. In the event that production of this particular subset of the documentation continues to be an outstanding issue between the parties, the applicant is ordered to produce such arguably relevant documentation to the respondents HONI, Smith, Clothier and Stilling forthwith.

5Finally, I note that the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) in this matter on January 19, 2012, directing the respondent Jordan Varley to advise the Tribunal as to whether he intended to attend the hearing in this matter. The CAD directed that if he failed to respond within seven days of the CAD or if he advised that he did not intend to attend the hearing dates, the matter would proceed with no further Notice of Hearing to be provided to him. The Tribunal has received no communication from the respondent Jordan Varley, nor has he attended at any of the several hearing days in this matter, nor does the Tribunal have any indication that he intends to participate in these proceedings. Accordingly, there is no order for production of documentation to Mr. Varley.

6Finally, if production of the remainder of the documentation HONI seeks continues to be an outstanding issue, the applicant will bring such documentation to the next day of hearing. At the commencement of the next day of hearing, the parties will provide brief submissions regarding the RFOP.

ORDER

7The Tribunal directs as follows:

1. The applicant shall provide to the respondents, with the exception of Jordan Varley, copies of correspondence between the applicant and Mr. Abe MacKay in relation to the email dated March 3, 2011 titled “Cussing at Work”;