Sears v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2013 HRTO 90

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Russell Sears

Applicant

-and-

Honda of Canada Mfg., a division of Honda Canada Inc., and Jim Proper

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: January 17, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 90 Indexed as: Sears v. Honda of Canada Mfg.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Russell Sears, Applicant

Self-represented

Honda of Canada Mfg., a division of Honda Canada Inc., and Jim Proper, Respondents

Jayson A. Rider, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed on April 21, 2011, 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 disability.

2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) on December 17, 2012. Appended to the Request were three summons forms with the names of three witnesses, each of whom is apparently employed by the corporate respondent. The letter attached to the Request made it clear that the applicant wished to ensure that these witnesses are called to testify at the hearing, but that he did not have the addresses and telephone numbers of the prospective witnesses, and wished to obtain this information from the respondents. The respondents filed a Response opposing the Request. On January 4, 2013, I issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) in which the respondents were directed to send the applicant the addresses and telephone numbers at which the individuals named in the Request could be reached, within five days of the date of the Case Assessment Direction.

3Apparently, the respondents did not comply with the direction. On January 13 2013, the respondents sent the Tribunal a letter in which they undertook to serve the subpoenas on the witnesses. The applicant filed a Request asking that the respondents be required to comply with the direction given in the CAD.

4It is routine in litigation, when a party is considering whether to call a witness, that the party will at least attempt to discuss with the prospective witness what that individual might have to say. The applicant has a right to make this attempt, and I have had no submissions from the respondent as to why the applicant should not be able to exercise that right.

5In respect of general principles relating to summoning witnesses before the Tribunal, the parties are directed to the decision in Smith v. Camis, 2012 HRTO 2053.

ORDER

6The respondents must send the applicant the addresses and telephone numbers at which the individuals named in the applicant’s Request of December 17, 2012 can be reached, within five days of the date of this Interim Decision.