Lawrence v. Chrysler Canada, 2014 HRTO 1434

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Lawrence

Applicant

-and-

Chrysler Canada and Carol Baker

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: September 25, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1434

Indexed as: Lawrence v. Chrysler Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Lawrence, Applicant

Self-represented

Chrysler Canada and Carol Baker, Respondents

Clifford Hart, Counsel

1This matter is scheduled for a hearing on October 10, 2014. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the parties on April 28, 2014.

Adjournment request

2The applicant has requested that the hearing be adjourned to a later date. He indicates that October 10, 2014 is the Friday of the Thanksgiving holiday long week-end and some of his witnesses are leaving town to be with their families for the holiday. The respondents object to the request.

3The request to adjourn is denied. The HRTO only grants adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party. I find that there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant the adjournment of the hearing. The matter is scheduled for October 10, 2014. It is likely that the Vice-chair or member hearing the case will attempt to resolve the matter at the beginning of the hearing through mediation-adjudication in which case the applicant’s witnesses will not be needed. If the matter is not resolved then the applicant must present his case first. The applicant can provide his evidence and he can then call his available witnesses. The Vice-chair or member hearing the case can then determine how to further proceed. Therefore, the applicant’s witnesses can be out of town visiting their families and an adjournment of the hearing is not necessary.

Removal of personal respondent

4The respondents have filed a Request for Order During Proceedings requesting that Carol Baker be removed as a personal respondent. However, given that Ms. Baker’s alleged conduct is a central issue in this matter, I do not find it appropriate, at this stage, to remove Ms. Baker as a personal respondent. The Vice-chair or member hearing this matter may wish to revisit the issue about whether or not Ms. Baker should be removed as a personal respondent after the applicant’s evidence.

Production request

5The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings requesting production of documents. I note that pursuant to the request, the respondents have produced an unredacted copy of the “Encounters for an Individual Employee” form. Otherwise, I agree with the respondents that the production request is overly broad. For example, the applicant is seeking production of “all letters and agreements that were not published in our original [collective] agreement” without any indication as to how these letters and agreements are relevant to the issues. In my view, the production request is a “fishing expedition”. The applicant confirms as much when he states: “This information is needed to build Mr. Lawrence’s case.” The applicant has made discreet allegations. Production is not designed to be a tool for an applicant to build a case. The request for production is denied.