HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Diana Andrusiek
Applicant
-and-
Waakohnsuk Native Non-Profit Homes Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Andrusiek v. Waakohnsuk Native Non-Profit Homes Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Diana Andrusiek, Applicant
Christopher Robertson, Counsel
Waakohnsuk Native Non-Profit Homes Inc, Respondent
Rejean Parise, Counsel
1By Application filed on July 16, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, she alleged that the respondent terminated her employment because it did not wish to accommodate any future disruptions in her work caused by her disability and the increased likelihood of such disruptions due to her age. The respondent submitted that it terminated the applicant’s employment due to incompetence and gross violations of policy, especially regarding financial matters.
2This Interim Decision addresses the Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the applicant in which she requested production of various documents from the respondent.
Applicant’s RFOP
3In her RFOP, the applicant requested production of the following documents which she submitted are arguably relevant to this proceeding:
a. All co-ordinator monthly reports and/or property manager records and reports for the period from February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013.
b. All records prepared by Grant Thornton, the respondent’s bookkeeper and auditor, for the period from February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013 in respect of the respondent including, without limitation, any report demonstrating monthly tenant rental payments and/or arrears.
c. The cancelled cheques in respect of any allegation of the respondent that the cheques were improperly requisitioned.
d. All Board meeting minutes of the respondent for the period from February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013.
e. The audited financial statements of the respondent for 2011 and 2012.
f. The annual information return of the respondent for 2011 and 2012.
4By e-mail dated September 19, 2014, the respondent’s counsel indicated as follows with respect to each of the above items:
a. He would inquire with his client as to the monthly property manager reports and, if they exist, will produce them.
b. He had no difficulty with respect to the request for Grant Thornton bookkeeping records.
c. He did not know if the cancelled cheques were available but, if they are, they will be produced.
d. He did not respond to the applicant’s request for Board meeting minutes.
e. He was uncertain as to the difference between audited financial statements and the annual information forms sought by the applicant. He indicated that he would confirm whether the respondent’s statements are audited and, if so, would produce them.
Finding
5The basic principle in determining a production request is whether the requested documents are “arguably relevant” to the issues in dispute in the proceeding. It appears from the September 19, 2014 e-mail from the respondent’s counsel that the respondent does not oppose the applicant’s production request, with the exception that it has not responded to the applicant’s request for Board meeting minutes.
6I find that all items sought by the applicant are arguably relevant to the issues raised in this proceeding and must be produced if they remain in the respondent’s possession or control.
7Therefore, the respondent must produce the following to the applicant no later than October 3, 2013.
a. All co-ordinator monthly reports and/or property manager records and reports for the period from February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013 that are in the respondent’s possession or control.
b. All records prepared by Grant Thornton, the respondent’s bookkeeper and auditor, for the period from February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013 in respect of the respondent including, without limitation, any report demonstrating monthly tenant rental payments and/or arrears.
c. The cancelled cheques in respect of any allegation of the respondent that the cheques were improperly requisitioned that are in the respondent’s possession or control.
d. All Board meeting minutes of the respondent for the period from February 1, 2012 to February 1, 2013 that are in the respondent’s possession or control.
e. The audited financial statements of the respondent for 2011 and 2012 of the kind referred to in the letter dated August 16, 2011 attached at Tab 8 of the applicant’s RFOP.
f. The annual information return of the respondent for 2011 and 2012 of the kind referred to in the letter dated August 16, 2011 attached at Tab 8 of the applicant’s RFOP.
Order
8The respondent must produce to the applicant the materials set out in para. 7 above no later than October 3, 2013.
9The deadline for the parties’ disclosure required under Rules 16.2 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure is extended to October 17, 2013.
Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of October, 2014.
“signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair