HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hyan No on behalf of Hae-jo No Applicant
-and-
Harry Rosen Incorporated and Domenic D’Angelo Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: April 8, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 559 Indexed as: No v. Harry Rosen Incorporated
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Hyan No on behalf of Hae-jo No, Applicant John Nelson, Counsel
Harry Rosen Incorporated and Domenic D’Angelo, Respondents Lauren Cowl, Counsel
Introduction
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. This matter is scheduled for hearing on June 10, 11 and 12 in Toronto.
2The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding for production of documents (the “Request for production”) in the possession of the respondents. The applicant takes the position that a lot more documents should exist and that the respondents are selectively deciding what is relevant to the proceedings.
3The respondents take the position that the Request for production is moot because they have conducted a search and disclosed to the applicant all arguably relevant documents. They also state that they have disclosed all of the documents in the applicant’s employment file.
Decision
4The Tribunal has the power to order a party to produce any document that is arguably relevant to the proceeding. 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: Lampi v. Princess House Products Canada Inc., 2008 HRTO 1, at para. 8. Finding that documents are arguably relevant for production does not mean that such documentation will be admissible at a hearing: Lampi at para. 9.
5Having reviewed the pleadings and the nature of the documents sought by the applicant I find that these are arguably relevant to the proceeding. However, I have no evidence before me that the respondents are withholding any arguably relevant documents from the applicant.
6In these circumstances, and in light of the respondents’ representation that they have disclosed all documents in the applicant’s employment file, I decline to issue the order sought by the applicant.
7The parties are reminded that they must deliver to the other party and file with the Tribunal their hearing materials, which includes the documents that they intend to rely on at the hearing and detailed witness statements by no later than April 26, 2013.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of April, 2013.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair