HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Louise Heyens

Applicant

-and-

Guelph Community Health Centre and Christina Mann

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: September 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1348

Indexed as: Heyens v. Guelph Community Health Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Louise Heyens, Applicant

Self-represented

Guelph Community Health Centre and Christina Mann, Respondents

Andrew Zabrovsky, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1This Application, filed on July 17, 2013, alleges discrimination against the applicant with respect to her volunteer work because of disability, age and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A summary hearing was held on January 29, 2014 to determine whether some or all of the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

3By Interim Decision dated April 7, 2014 (2014 HRTO 467), the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a November 2010 ban from the Guelph Community Health Centre (the “Centre”) and a refusal to reconsider the ban in 2012 because these allegations were outside of the one-year time limit under the Code. The timely allegation relating to a ban in June 2013 was allowed to proceed because it could not be determined, in the absence of any evidence, that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal stated in the Interim Decision that “although the November 2010 ban is not proceeding as an allegation of discrimination, the Centre may include background information relating to the November 2010 ban if it is relevant to the ban in 2013”.

4As a result of the findings made in the Interim Decision, the Application was dismissed against all respondents except the Centre and the individual respondent Christina Mann (“Mann”).

5The Response of the Centre and Mann to the remaining allegation was received on May 7, 2014, along with a Request for Summary Hearing.

6On June 6, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application, and requesting particulars (details) and production of documents. There was no information provided by the applicant concerning how she wanted to amend the Application or what particulars she was seeking. The documents sought by the applicant were itemized on the Request.

ANALYSIS

Applicant’s Requests

7The applicant requested an in-person hearing to deal with her requests. In my view, an in-person hearing is not necessary to determine the issues raised by the applicant.

8The applicant has sought production of various documents relating to the disciplinary policies of the Centre, the applicant’s discipline in 2010, and her request to reconsider that discipline in 2012.

9Under Rule 16, the Tribunal sets out rules for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case. Until the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties have no disclosure obligations.

10The Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances. The applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstances required for the Tribunal to grant her request for early production. As such, the applicant’s request for production is denied.

11The Tribunal will issue a Notice of Hearing setting out the parties’ production obligations. The applicant may renew her production request following the deadline for disclosure if she believes that the respondents have not disclosed arguably relevant documents. The Tribunal will consider and rule on the production request if and when it is renewed, recognizing that there may be a dispute between the parties regarding the relevance of the documents sought by the applicant.

12Although the applicant has indicated in the Request that she is seeking leave to amend the Application and particulars, she has not provided any information regarding the amendments or the particulars sought. As such, they will not be addressed.

RESPONDENTS’ REQUESTS

13The respondents have requested a summary hearing for the remaining allegation. This request is dismissed. Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision not to hold a summary hearing.

NEXT STEPS

14In responding to the respondents’ request for a summary hearing, the applicant requested mediation. Mediation is a consensual process and cannot be required in the absence of the consent of all parties.

15The Application is in queue to be scheduled for a hearing. The hearing will relate to the 2013 ban and it will be an in-person hearing.

ORDER

16The applicant’s request for production is dismissed.

17The respondents’ request for summary hearing is dismissed.

18The Application will continue to be processed by the Tribunal.