Newman v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, 2013 HRTO 1855

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Diane Newman

Applicant

-and-

Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association and Marshall Jarvis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: November 5, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1855 Indexed as: Newman v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Diane Newman, Applicant No one appearing

Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association and Marshall Jarvis, Respondents Allison Taylor, Counsel

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 discrimination with respect to employment because of age and disability. This Interim Decision addresses a Request for an Order During Proceedings filed by the respondents.

background

2The applicant is a former employee of the organizational respondent. The applicant was an Executive Assistant in the Professional Development Department and was responsible for the development of professional development courses for the organizational respondent’s members. The applicant alleges that the respondents subjected her to discriminatory and harassing conduct over a period of years, culminating in her decision to resign her employment and retire on or about November 29, 2011. The respondents deny that they the applicant’s Code rights. Rather, the respondents’ state that they were required to address serious performance deficiencies on the applicant’s part, including failure to obtain accreditation from the College of Teachers (the “College”) for several professional development courses. The respondents’ position is that the applicant absented herself from work to avoid being held responsible for her performance deficiencies.

The Request

3The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on May 3, 2013 seeking an order to compel the College to produce all documentation between the College and the applicant. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s duties included interaction with the College. The respondents submitted that communications between the applicant and the College in the course of her duties are relevant to the issues in this Application. The respondents submitted that it has approached the College to obtain these communications, but the College has advised that, pursuant to section 48 of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 S.O. 1996, c.12, the College may only disclose such information with the consent of the applicant or by order of the Tribunal, which is confirmed in a letter from the College, dated May 1, 2013.

Decision

4The Tribunal may require a person who is not a party to an application to produce documents or information pursuant to section 43(3)(f)(i) of the Code and Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”). The Tribunal will order the production of documents if such documents are arguably relevant to the issues arising in an application. In my view, the applicant’s communications with the College are arguably relevant to the issue of the applicant’s performance and should be produced. It is not necessary, however, to order the College to produce them. Rather, I find it appropriate to direct the applicant to obtain these documents from the College and to include them in her arguably relevant documents, as required by Rule 16.1 of the Rules.

Order

5The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The applicant shall obtain from the College all documentation of communications between the College and the applicant made in the course of the applicant’s duties with the organizational respondent.

2. The applicant shall disclose all documents she obtains pursuant to paragraph 5(1), above, with her arguably relevant documents, as required by Rule 16.1 of the Rules.

6I am not seized of this matter.