HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Randall Crook
Applicant
-and-
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: February 26, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 317 Indexed as: Crook v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Randall Crook, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV 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. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for the production of documents from the respondent.
2The Application alleges that the respondent terminated the applicant’s employment for absenteeism although the respondent was aware at the time that the applicant’s absences from work were related to treatment the applicant was receiving for a medical condition. The respondent submits that the applicant had not asked the respondent for accommodation for a disability including asking for time off for treatment and that its decision to terminate the applicant’s employment following the applicant’s absence on May 19, 2011 was for non-discriminatory reasons.
3On January 25, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking the production of his personal medical file from the respondent. The applicant submits that his medical file will support the fact that the respondent was aware the applicant had a disability and that the respondent was accommodating this disability by supporting the treatment program the applicant had undertaken.
DECISION
4The threshold for production and disclosure of documents before the Tribunal is “arguable relevance” – not a particularly high bar. There must be some relevance and the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and issues in dispute before the Tribunal. See Neusch v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) (2002), 2002 CanLII 46508 (ON HRT), 43 C.H.R.R. D/171 at paragraph 38.
5The applicant’s request is granted, in part. I am satisfied that there is a nexus, a connection, between documents in the respondent’s medical file and the allegations the applicant has raised in the Application. Medical information in the respondent’s possession may be arguably relevant to determining what information the respondent had in its possession regarding the applicant’s medical condition and what arrangements, if any, had been discussed or agreed to regarding the applicant’s treatment of this condition.
6The applicant’s request is granted in part because I do not find it necessary that the respondent release the applicant’s entire medical file given the nature and timing of the Application’s allegations. The respondent is directed to provide all documents in the applicant’s medical file beginning April 1, 2011.
7The hearing of the applicant’s Application has been set for April 4 and 5, 2013. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to provide the applicant with the identified documents from his medical file no later than March 15, 2013. If the applicant wishes to rely on any of these documents he is to file them with the Tribunal and provide copies of these documents to the respondent no later than March 22, 2013. If either of the parties wish to amend their witness lists or witness statements in light of these documents they are to do so by March 29, 2013.
ORDER
The respondent is ordered to provide the applicant with all the documents in the applicant’s medical file starting April 1, 2011 and to do so no later than March 15, 2013.
The applicant must file with the Tribunal and provide the respondent with any documents from his medical file that he intends to rely on by no later than March 22, 2013.
The parties have until March 29, 2013 to amend their witness lists and witness statements in light of any documents from the applicant’s medical file.
Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of February, 2013.
“Signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair