Peggy Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board, 2013 HRTO 55

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peggy Harrypersad

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1628

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: January 10, 2012
Citation: 2013 HRTO 55
Indexed as: Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peggy Harrypersad, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin and race. This Interim Decision deals with a second Request for Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant seeking the production of documents.

2This case concerns in large part a job competition or competitions. In a prior Request the applicant sought the following documents:

a. Names of applicants for the positions

b. Interview Applications

c. Interview Questions

d. Interview Panel Notes (Administration Notes)

e. Formal Offer

f. Feedback Notes for all Applicants

3In their response to this first Request, the respondents submitted that in their list of arguably relevant documents delivered to the applicant pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules, they provided amongst other things:

a. Applications submitted by the applicant and the successful candidate

b. References submitted by the applicant and the successful candidate

c. Interview questions and notes taken by the Principal and Vice-Principal for the applicant and the successful candidate

4The respondents also submitted that there were no feedback notes for any of the applicants for the position. The respondents stated they are prepared to determine whether or not a formal offer was made to the successful candidate and provide a copy of this material if it exists.

5The applicant made no submissions about why these documents were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute. The respondents argued that given the passage of time, it is unlikely that the names and interview notes for the other ten candidates for the position are available. The respondents also noted that the applicant had provided no reason why such material would be arguably relevant.

6In an Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 2378 I denied the Request on the basis that I was not satisfied that the additional documents sought by the applicant were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute. I also directed that the respondent produce a formal offer to the successful candidate if such a document exists.

7Subsequent to my determination of the Request the applicant filed a further Request with submissions in support of the prior Request.

8Although it is not normal to entertain further submissions after a Decision has been made, in the circumstances, I have reviewed the applicant’s submissions and made a further determination of the issue.

9I am not satisfied that it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of this Application that these further documents be produced. I note that the hearing is scheduled to begin on February 12 and 13, 2013. The parties were initially required to exchange all arguably relevant documents by July 6, 2012. It appears that this was not accomplished until October 5, 2012. It seems to be too late in the day to be seeking the production of a significant number of documents on the eve of the hearing when the issues in dispute have been clearly identified for many months and the documents identified as potentially relevant to those issues disclosed for several months. More importantly I am not persuaded that as the applicant suggests these additional documents may provide context and may allow further grounds to attack the respondents’ approach to the job competitions. The respondent has produced the arguably relevant material related to the candidacy of the successful incumbent as well as the applicant. Given the manner in which this Application has been framed this is clearly the most relevant comparison to be made. On the face of the Request the applicant is engaging in a speculative search for evidence that she has provided no reason to believe exists. For all of these reasons the Request is denied.

Other Matters

10The parties are reminded that one of the dispute resolution mechanisms the Tribunal offers to the parties is mediation/adjudication where with the assistance of the Member presiding at the hearing, the parties engage in settlement discussions. Further information about this process can be found on the Tribunal’s website. If the parties are interested in participating in mediation/adjudication they may advise the Tribunal in advance or at the day of hearing.

11I am not seized of this case.