Greaves v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 HRTO 1395

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Greaves

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: September 18, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1395 Indexed as: Greaves v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeffrey Greaves, Applicant

No submissions filed

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent

Patricia Matusiak, Counsel

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

2After the Tribunal served the Application, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP"). In addition to asserting that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success, the respondent submitted that it requires an order from the Tribunal authorizing it to access, use and/or disclose the personal health information of the applicant contained in the respondent's Occupational Health and Claims Management ("OHCM") file in order for it to file a meaningful Response, responding to the issues in the Application. The respondent submits that because of restrictions contained in legislation, including the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, the content of the OHCM file is kept separate from other human resources files. It requests 35 days from the date of production of these requested materials to file its Response.

3The applicant has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.

Analysis

4Before ordering production of documents, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the documents in question are "arguably relevant", and that they are not privileged or raise privacy concerns, see McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. "Arguable relevance" is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute. A finding that a document is arguably relevant does not necessarily mean that the document will actually be found to be relevant or admissible at a hearing.

5In his Application, the applicant has clearly placed at issue his medical conditions. I am satisfied that the documents contained in the OHCM file are arguably relevant and that the respondent requires access to them in order to meaningfully respond to the Application.

6As the applicant's allegations pertain to the treatment he received from the respondent pertaining to his medical conditions since August 2011, in my view it is appropriate to restrict the respondent's access to the OHCM file from August 2011 to date, given that the Application was filed in July 2014.

ORDER

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondent is granted disclosure and access to the applicant's OHCM file from August 2011 to date;

b. The respondent's advisors, instructors and potential witnesses (in relation to information contained in the applicant's OHCM file) are the only individuals permitted to access and use the applicant's health files as identified in (a); and

c. The respondent's request for an extension of time is granted. The respondent is required to file its Response within 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision;

8I am not seized with this matter.