HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paula Hassall
Applicant
-and-
Oatley, Vigmond Personal Injury Lawyers LLP
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: Hassall v. Oatley, Vigmond Personal Injury Lawyers LLP
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Oatley, Vigmond Personal Injury Lawyers LLP, Respondent
Jason Botelho, Counsel
1This is an Application dated April 1, 2013 and 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 sex, sexual harassment and family status.
2The hearing in this matter commenced in Toronto on May 5, 2014. While the hearing had been scheduled to continue on May 6, 2014, this date was adjourned due to the illness of a key respondent representative. The hearing has been scheduled to continue on September 23, 24 and 25, 2014.
3At the hearing on May 5, 2014, the applicant agreed to withdraw her Application as against all personal respondents and also to withdraw her allegation of sexual harassment.
4Also at the hearing on May 5, 2014, I marked certain documents filed by the parties as exhibits, subject to any objection raised by any party as to the authenticity or admissibility of any particular document. I asked the parties to advise whether they were raising any objection as to the authenticity or admissibility of any document by no later than 10 days before the scheduled resumption of the hearing, which would be by September 13, 2014. As September 13 is a Saturday, I am hereby asking the parties to advise as to any such objection by no later than Friday, September 12, 2014.
5In this context, the respondent has filed a Request for Order seeking production from the applicant of certain information or things which it says are required in order to take a position on the authenticity and admissibility of two particular documents submitted by the applicant. While the respondent has requested a conference call to deal with this issue, in my view this is not necessary and the matter can be addressed in writing. Despite having been served with the respondent’s Request, the applicant has not filed any Response and the time for doing so has expired.
6The first document at issue is a set of notes submitted by the applicant regarding her experiences at the respondent law firm. At the top of the document is the date “January 23, 2013”. The applicant filed a “jpeg” version of this document. In respect of this document, the respondent has requested the following information or things:
a. Information regarding the specific computer the applicant used to make these notes;
b. The program the applicant used to make these notes e.g. Word; and
c. An electronic copy of the original electronic version of the applicant’s notes. For example, if the notes were made using Word, then the respondent requests an unedited Word version of the notes.
7It seems clear to me that what the respondent is trying to ascertain is whether the document submitted by the applicant represents an unedited copy of notes actually made by her on January 23, 2013, or whether these notes were made or edited at some later date. In my view, that information goes to the heart of the authenticity and admissibility of this document, and thus is arguably relevant to an issue in this proceeding. Accordingly, I order the applicant to produce the information sought together with an original electronic copy of this document. No alteration or change should be made by the applicant to the electronic copy of the document in her possession prior to producing this document to the respondent.
8The second document at issue is a letter which the applicant states that she sent by e-mail to various partners at the respondent law firm on January 30, 2013. I am aware from the respondent’s materials that these individuals deny having received this letter. Once again, while the applicant has produced a jpeg version of the letter and the cover e-mail, the respondent seeks the following information or things:
a. Information regarding the specific computer from which the applicant sent the e-mail; and
b. An unedited electronic copy of the original cover e-mail from the original computer.
9Once again, in my view, this information and the electronic copy of the original e-mail are arguably relevant to the authenticity and admissibility of the applicant’s document, and I therefore order them to be produced. Once again, no alteration or change should be made by the applicant to the electronic copy of the e-mail prior to producing this document to the respondent.
ORDER
10Within 14 calendar days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall produce to the respondent the following information or things:
a. With regard to Document No. 5 of Exhibit #4, namely the applicant’s notes bearing the date of January 23, 2013, the applicant shall provide:
i. Information regarding the specific computer the applicant used to make these notes;
ii. The program the applicant used to make these notes e.g. Word; and
iii. An electronic copy of the original electronic version of the applicant’s notes. For example, if the notes were made using Word, then the respondent requests an unedited Word version of the notes; and
b. With regard to Document No. 4 of Exhibit #4, namely the e-mail and letter dated January 30, 2013 sent by the applicant to various partners at the respondent law firm, the applicant shall provide;
i. Information regarding the specific computer from which the applicant sent the e-mail; and
ii. An unedited electronic copy of the original cover e-mail from the original computer.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of July, 2014.
“Signed by”
Mark Hart
Vice-chair