Sarbijit Kaur v. Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc., 2013 HRTO 1369

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sarbijit Kaur Applicant

-and-

Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1369 Indexed as: Kaur v. Barry J. Stafford Enterprises Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sarbjit Kaur, Applicant ) Dharminder Kumar, Representative

1The applicant filed this Application on January 2, 2013, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability.

2The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 676 pending the conclusion of a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (“ESA”).

3The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) on June 6, 2013 seeking to reactivate and amend the Application. The RFOP also notes that the applicant has requested certain documents from the respondent.

4The respondent did not file a response to the RFOP.

Reactivation Request

5The RFOP included a copy of a letter from the Ministry of Labour Employment Standards Officer indicating that no ESA contraventions were found.

6It appears that the ESA claim is now concluded and there does not appear to be any indication that the applicant is appealing the ESA decision. In these circumstances, I find that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.

Amendment Request

7The RFOP simply states that the applicant seeks to amend her original Application because she has new evidence and testimony in support of her case. The RFOP does not particularize the nature of the proposed amendments.

8Given the absence of any details regarding the proposed amendments, the Tribunal will not deal with this aspect of the RFOP at this time. In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to a respondent.

9Should the applicant wish to proceed with a request to amend, the applicant is directed to provide an itemized list of the proposed amendments, including specific information explaining the nature of the new allegations or issues, the reasons for the amendments, and address any potential concerns with respect to timing and prejudice.

Production Request

10The RFOP states that the applicant has requested copies of doctors’ notes that were provided to the respondent, as well as a Record of Employment. The applicant indicates that these documents have not been provided.

11It is not clear if the applicant is seeking a production order at this time or simply highlighting for the Tribunal and respondent that the applicant takes the position that certain documents are arguably relevant.

12The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) sets out the obligations and requirements that parties must satisfy with respect to exchange of arguably relevant information and production of anticipated hearing evidence. Rule 16 requires that parties to an application will exchange arguably relevant documents 21 days after the Notice of Hearing is issued by the Tribunal, which has not yet occurred in this case. The documents sought by the applicant may potentially be part of the respondent’s arguably relevant disclosure under Rule 16.

13As such, the Tribunal will not make any order with respect to production at this stage of the proceeding. This determination is made without any indication of the appropriateness of the production sought and without prejudice to any position the parties may wish to take regarding the issue of disclosure and production.

Orders

14The Application is reactivated. The respondent is directed to write to the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision indicating whether or not it is amenable to participating in mediation.

15I am not seized.