McNeil v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2013 HRTO 815

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen McNeil

Applicant

-and-

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 815

Indexed as: McNeil v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Karen McNeil, Applicant

Self-represented

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Respondent

Ted Kovacs, Counsel

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request for production of documents.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) on March 25, 2013 seeking the production of her performance evaluations from all departments.

3By letter dated April 8, 2013, the respondent agreed to provide the requested documents without prejudice to its right to submit that these evaluations are not relevant at the hearing. By letter dated April 22, 2013, the respondent advised that it was providing the applicant with the requested documents. However, by e-mail dated May 1, 2013, the applicant advised that she had not received all of her performance evaluations as requested. She noted that the respondent sent only the evaluations completed by group leaders Shawn Verbeckel and Luc. L. According to the applicant, there exist other performance evaluations that have not been provided, including an evaluation by group leader John (last name unknown).

4The basic principle in determining a production request is whether the requested documents are “arguably relevant” to the issues in dispute in the proceeding. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are “arguably relevant” to the issues in dispute in the proceeding before the Tribunal.

5In her application, the applicant claims, among other things, that she was harassed by Shawn Verbeckel and that he tried to humiliate her by giving her bad performance evaluations. In my view, the requested performance evaluations are arguably relevant to this claim since they may reveal a consistency or inconsistency in the performance evaluations completed by Mr. Verbeckel as compared to other group leaders. As the performance evaluations are arguably relevant, the respondent shall produce them to the applicant.

DIRECTION

6Within 14 days of this Interim Decision, the respondent shall produce to the applicant any and all of the applicant’s performance evaluations that have not already been disclosed to date.