Akash v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 CanLII 12471

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ahmed Akash

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: March 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 407

Indexed as: Akash v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ahmed Akash, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent

Michelle Dobranowski, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application is proceeding to a hearing on April 16 and 17, 2014.

2On December 20, 2012, the Tribunal issued an interim decision in this matter, 2012 HRTO 2373, which held the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether it is discriminatory for the Toronto Transit Commission (the “TTC”) not to include rear door loading work in the categories of work that qualify for a spread allowance under the collective agreement. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal held it was “influenced by the existence of a category of mostly disabled workers that is one of the few categories of work that does not receive additional remuneration over split shifts”.

3On March 3, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) seeking the following:

a. Production of statistical information relating to the number of disabled employees in accommodated positions and how and when they were deployed by the TTC.

b. An amendment of the Application to include $20,000.00 in general damages.

4The respondent objects to the applicant’s production request on the basis that the information sought is not relevant. The respondent does not oppose the applicant’s request to amend the Application.

5The applicant’s request for production by the TTC is denied because it is not relevant to the sole issue before the Tribunal. The issue before the Tribunal is not the broad issue of how disabled workers are accommodated by the TTC nor is it the TTC’s Transitional Work Program. The only issue is whether the failure to include rear door loading work in the categories of work that qualify for a spread allowance is discriminatory. I would note that according to the interim decision, rear door loading work is performed mostly by disabled workers. That fact was relied upon by the Tribunal in reaching its interim decision.

6The applicant’s request to amend the Application to include a claim for general damages in the amount of $20,000.00 is allowed. The respondent does not object to the amendment and it is clear in the Application that the applicant is seeking monetary compensation. The Tribunal notes the respondent’s submission regarding the applicant’s entitlement to general damages and the amount claimed.

7In the Notice of Hearing, the applicant was required to file his pre-hearing materials, including the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, by March 3, 2014. The applicant has not filed any documents. This may be because the documents relating to the sole issue before the Tribunal are in the hands of the respondent. In the event the applicant intends to rely upon documents, in addition to the documents filed by the respondent, he is directed to deliver those documents to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal by March 28, 2014. The applicant is not required to identify the respondent’s documents that he intends to rely upon. That is not a requirement under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

order

8The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The applicant’s production request is denied.

2. The applicant’s request to amend the Application to add a claim for general damages in the amount of $20,000.00 is allowed.

3. The applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal any documents he intends to rely upon by March 28, 2014. The applicant is not required to identify the respondent documents that he intends to rely upon.