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
Indexed as: Tamming v. Lake Ridge Community Support Services
APPEARANCES
Phillip Tamming, Applicant
Self-represented
Lake Ridge Community Support Services, Respondent
John Montgomery, 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 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 hearing of this case is scheduled to proceed on December 2 and 3, 2013, in Toronto. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request..
2In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1875 issued on November 8, 2013, the applicant’s Request was in large part denied. However, the respondent was directed to respond to two aspects of the Request related to the gender makeup of the workforce for a period of time pre- and post-dating the applicant’s employment, as well as identification by gender of the scores in the IBI Competency testing which the respondent is relying on to support its decision to dismiss the applicant from his employment.
3The respondent argues that the information sought by the applicant is not at all relevant to the issues in dispute in the case. The respondent argues that the applicant’s complaint relates to a particular incident in which the applicant alleges that the respondent did not properly respond to competing complaints of harassment by him and a female co-worker. The respondent argues that the gender composition of the respondent's workforce at any given time has no probative value in relation to the factual questions of whether the respondent appropriately responded to this workplace dispute. The respondent also argues that information about the gender composition of the workforce might be prejudicial to the respondent in that such information might be used to found and argument that the respondent lacked experience dealing with males and that this led to reliance on stereotypes.
4I do not agree with the respondent on this issue. While marginally relevant perhaps, it seems to me that the workplace ecology, including the gender makeup of the workforce, is part of the context in which the applicant’s claims are made and as such may be arguably relevant to the issues in dispute in this case.
5As regards the request for the gender identity of each employee’s IBI Competency scores, the respondent argues that this information adds no relevant information. The respondent points out that there is no claim in this case of systemic discrimination against men in this workplace and deals with one incident involving competing claims of harassment by a male and a female employee.
6I agree with the respondent that this information does not appear to be arguably relevant, but for slightly different reasons. As previously indicated, the allegation in respect of the applicant’s termination is not that the workplace discriminates against men on a systemic basis, but rather that his termination from employment was in reprisal for his earlier sexual harassment complaint. It is not at all clear to me how the evidence of how women score on this testing as compared to men is probative of the question of whether or not the respondent fired the applicant because he had previously raised a human rights complaint.
Directions
7The Tribunal directs that the respondent identify by gender all staff employed by the respondent during the currency of the applicant’s employment. This information should be delivered and filed no later than 5:00 p.m. Thursday, November 28, 2013.
8I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of November, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair