Sini Zhang v. Globfillchv Crystal Trading, 2014 HRTO 1004

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sini Zhang

Applicant

-and-

Globfillchv Crystal Trading

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: July 10, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1004
Indexed as: Zhang v. Globefillchv Crystal Trading

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sini Zhang, Applicant

Marisa Scotto di Luzio, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant requests an order:

a. that the respondent disclose its arguably relevant documents, including all electronic communication (including text messages from cellular phones and messages through QQ instant messaging program) between the applicant and Director Helen Xie between July 20 and 23, 2013, inclusive;

b. that a third party, Rogers Communications, disclose all text messages and a detailed record of the applicant’s cellular phone activity setting out the time, date and telephone number of the texts sent and received by her between July 20 and 23, 2013, inclusive;

c. amending her Application to include a request for damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect of $20,000.00 and for all managers and owners of the respondent to complete Human Rights 101 training through the Human Rights Commission’s e-learning module.

3The respondent has provided no response to the request. The legal department at Rogers Communication notified the applicant that it can provide no content of text messages but can provide the call detail records for the relevant period that will show dates, times and duration of incoming and outgoing calls and text messages, as well as the source, which can take up to 30 days to produce. The applicant has advised she will bear the cost of obtaining these records.

4The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, dated February 24, 2014, advising the parties that the deadline for disclosing arguably relevant documents was March 17, 2014. To date, the respondent has provided no disclosure. The hearing is scheduled for September 2, 2014.

Production Request

5The applicant recently retained counsel to assist her with this matter. The request for production is somewhat late, but I find it is because of the recent retention of counsel.

6The respondent shall provide its arguably relevant documents to the applicant within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, and shall include all text messages from cellular phones and messages through QQ instant messaging program between the applicant and Helen Xie between July 20 and 23, 2013, inclusive. These documents are at least arguably relevant because the applicant advised the respondent of her pregnancy through QQ instant messaging and text message. Any issues with respect to their use at the hearing can be determined by the adjudicator at the hearing.

7Because Rogers Communications has advised it can provide the requested call detail records only with an order, I order Rogers Communications to disclose the call detail records for text and telephone calls made to and by the applicant for her prior work cell phone with the phone number and Rogers account number set out in paragraph 16 of Schedule “A” to the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings, dated June 12, 2014, for the period of July 20 to 23, 2013, inclusive, with the cost to be borne by the applicant. These records also are arguably relevant to show that the applicant had contact with the respondent on the dates she alleges she communicated with the respondent to advise of her pregnancy, and the respondent may not have kept such records.

Amendment of the Application

8In considering requests to amend applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

9The respondent did not object to the request, and the hearing is still more than 60 days away. As such, I find that it is not prejudicial to allow the applicant to amend her Application to include a claim for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect and that the managers and owners of the respondent undergo Human Rights 101 training.

order

10The Tribunal orders:

a. the respondent to deliver to the applicant, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, its arguably relevant documents, which shall include all text messages from cellular phones and messages through QQ instant messaging program between the applicant and Director Helen Xie between July 20 and 23, 2013, inclusive;

b. Rogers Communications to disclose to the applicant as soon as possible the call detail records for text and telephone calls made to and by the applicant for cell phone number and Rogers account number as set out in paragraph 16 of Schedule “A” to the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings, dated June 12, 2014, for the period of July 20 to 23, 2013, inclusive, with the cost to be borne by the applicant; and

c. the Application is amended to include a claim for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect in the sum of $20,000.00, and that the managers and owners of the respondent undergo Human Rights 101 training.