Ali v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2014 HRTO 1538

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Asli Ali Applicant

-and-

The Ottawa Hospital, Susan Longbottom, Raizha Gramcko and Karen Stockton Respondents

-and-

Ontario Nursing Association Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: October 15, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1538 Indexed as: Ali v. The Ottawa Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Asli Ali, Applicant Mohamed Doli, Counsel

The Ottawa Hospital, Susan Longbottom, Raizha Gramcko and Karen Stockton, Respondents Victoria Satta, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is refusing to order production of documents requested by the applicant at this stage of the proceedings. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant is employed as a nurse with the corporate respondent. She alleges that she was treated in a discriminatory manner by the respondents in their oversight of her nursing practice. The respondents have filed a Response which maintains that the applicant did not perform well at work, resulting in the applicant being formally assessed.

3The applicant requests an extension of time to file a Reply and states that she cannot file a Reply until she has received a number of documents from the respondents. She requests production of those documents. The requested list is extensive and includes numerous documents and charts relating to the applicant’s performance as well as documents relating to the qualifications of various colleagues of the applicant.

4The respondents argue that it is premature for the Tribunal to order production of documents. A mediation is pending and no Notice of Hearing has yet issued. They maintain that their disclosure obligations are triggered by the issuing of a Notice of Hearing and no exceptional circumstances exist that would justify departing from the Tribunal’s normal practice of requiring disclosure after a hearing date has been set.

5I agree with the respondents. The applicant has not provided any reason for the Tribunal to depart from its normal practice with respect to disclosure. The respondents have provided a detailed narrative in response to the Application. At this stage the applicant is required simply to state her case in reply to the Response. This entails setting out where she disagrees with the respondents’ version of events (if she has not already done so in her Application) and addressing any new issues the respondents may have raised. I have no reason to believe that the applicant is not capable of setting out a Reply that reflects her view of what took place and that is based on her own knowledge and belief. For these reasons I conclude that the applicant’s request is premature and is denied.

ORDER

6The request for production of documents is denied.

7The applicant is to file a Reply in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.