Phillip Tamming v. Lake Ridge Community Support Services, 2013 HRTO 1875

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Phillip Tamming

Applicant

-and-

Lake Ridge Community Support Services

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 8, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1875

Indexed as: Tamming v. Lake Ridge Community SupportServices

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 marital status, sex and reprisal. The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking the production of a number of documents. The applicant filed a second Request which is largely similar however in the second version of the Request the applicants makes two new requests which are addressed below. The hearing of this case is scheduled to begin on December 2, 3 and 4, 2013 in Toronto.

2The first Request is denied.

3The first groups of documents requested by the applicant are said to relate to a concern that there is systemic discrimination against men in the respondent’s workplace. As pointed out by the respondent there is no allegation of systemic discrimination in this case rather the central allegation relates to a particular incident – allegedly competing complaints of harassment by the applicant and a female co-worker – and what the applicant claims was a gendered response to his complaint by the respondent. Given this allegation the documents sought by the applicant are not relevant to the issues in dispute. I also note that the hearing is less than three weeks away. If the applicant thought these documents were arguably relevant he ought to have requested them when the respondent did not disclose them with their other disclosure required under Rule 16. For these reasons this aspect of the Request is largely denied.

4The remainder of the Request is for any documents related to the investigation of the competing complaints of the applicant and a co-worker. The respondent says that all of the documents in this category have been produced and state that some have been destroyed. The Tribunal will not make an order to produce documents that do not exist or have already been produced.

5In his second Request the applicant sought confirmation of the gender make up of the workforce from 2005 to date. This evidence may be arguable relevant however the Request seems overbroad. The applicant also requests the respondent annotate a list of scores it has provided on the Provincial IBI Competencies Evolution to indicate for each score whether the individual was male or female. This aspect of the Request may also be reasonable. The respondent should respond to these aspects of the applicant’s second Request.

6The Tribunal makes the following Directions:

a. The respondent is directed to deliver and file its response (Form 11), if any, to the two additional request of the applicant set out above. Upon receipt of the respondent’s submissions the Tribunal will make directions as necessary.

b. In the event that the respondent concedes this aspect of the Request it will suffice to confirm that in writing and then deliver and file this material as soon as possible by in no case later than 7 days prior to the first day of hearing.

7I am not seized of this case.