Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
David Hurrell Applicant
-and-
Kent Trusses and Brian Harmer Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Hurrell v. Trusses
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
David Hurrell, Applicant Self-represented
Kent Trusses and Brian Harmer, Respondents Sheryl L. Johnson, 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 disability, record of offences and reprisal.
2In the Application the applicant alleges that he is or was a person with a disability and that the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability related needs by requiring him to work beyond his restrictions. He also appears to allege that his termination was either an element of this failure to accommodate him or was a reprisal. The applicant makes a number of other allegations whose connection to the Code is unclear.
3This Interim Decision deals with a number of Requests for Orders during Proceeding (Requests) made by the parties.
REQUEST FOR INTERIM REMEDY
4On March 12, 2013 the applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy but the only remedy sought is a request for an immediate hearing. In my view what the applicant is actually seeking is an expedited hearing.
5Rule 21.2 provides as follows:
A Request to Expedite an Application made under Rule 21.1 must include:
a) A detailed description of the requested changes to the Tribunal's normal process, including timelines;
b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all the facts upon which the Applicant relies in support of the request to expedite; and
c) submissions that explain:
i. why there are urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the Application if the Application proceeds in accordance with the Tribunal's regular process;
ii. the harm that would result if the Request is denied; and,
iii. why the Application should be given priority for Tribunal resources over other matters.
6The Request is denied. Rule 21.2.1 provides that where the Tribunal denies a Request to Expedite it need not give reasons. I am not convinced that the applicant has met the test for this extraordinary remedy set out in Rule 21.
REQUEST FOR TRIBUNAL ORDERED INQUIRY AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
7Rule 20.2 provides in part as follows:
A Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry under Rule 20.1 must:
a) Describe the evidence or nature of the evidence to be obtained;
b) Explain why the evidence is necessary to achieve a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application;
c) Describe the efforts already made to obtain the evidence;and,
d) Propose terms of reference for the inquiry.
8The Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is denied. In his Request the applicant also seeks a number of documents which he believes may be relevant to some of the issues in dispute in this case. It is in fact a request for production. A Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the normal disclosure and production requirement of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. See White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1057. In this regard the applicant has also filed a Request for the production of other documents. I make no finding at this point as to whether the documents the applicant is seeking in either of these Requests are relevant since the Requests themselves are premature. The applicant provides no reason why these documents are needed at this early stage of the proceeding. The Tribunal's Rules provide for the production of all arguably relevant documents in advance of the hearing and the Tribunal does not normally order the production of documents prior to mediation.
OTHER MATTERS
9The applicant has also filed a Request with respect to prospective witnesses. The applicant seeks an order to protect prospective witnesses and to force the respondent to comply with section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This Request is denied at this stage. The applicant provides no reasons for the request other than an assertion that witnesses should be able to give evidence without fear of reprisal. Aside from this assertion there is no other reason provided for this Request and it is denied.
10The respondent has filed a Request seeking to define