Michelle Kungl v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 HRTO 1750

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Kungl Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: December 4, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1750 Indexed as: Kungl v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michelle Kungl, Applicant Lisa D. Belcourt, Counsel

Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent Angela E. Rae, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal alleging discrimination in employment because of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP"), to amend its Response to address issues raised in the applicant's Reply. The applicant did not respond to this RFOP, and the time for doing so has passed. Having reviewed the respondent's submissions in its RFOP, the Tribunal agrees that the request to amend is reasonable. The applicant shall have 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file any amended Reply.

3In addition, the applicant has brought an RFOP in which she seeks the following:

...production of any and all documentation relating to the physical demands with respect to the position of TTC Subway Operator/Guard in respect of the new "Toronto Rocket" subway trains. The Applicant also requests an Order permitting the Applicant and Jennifer Landry, occupational therapist, entry onto the premises of the Respondent and only a T1 subway train and a "Toronto Rocket" subway train for the purposes of determining the physical demands of an operator/guard, determining whether the Applicant is able to perform certain demands and assessing what accommodations would enable the Applicant to perform the role of a subway operator/guard.

4The respondent objects to the first portion of this request as premature, and the second portion as inappropriate and an "abuse of process." By this point, the issue of prematurity will have resolved itself, since the disclosure of arguably relevant documents under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure has taken place.

5The issue raised by the second portion of applicant's request is part of a larger issue about the scope of this hearing and the order in which the evidence should be called. The Tribunal will schedule a half-day teleconference to address these preliminary issues, including the request for entry onto the respondent's premises..

6The Registrar will contact the parties about a date for this preliminary hearing.