HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kelly Halpin
Applicant
-and-
Ken Hagerman Enterprises Ltd. o/s Bickell Auto Parts
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ruth Carey
Indexed as: Halpin v. Ken Hagerman Enterprises Ltd. o/s Bickell Auto Parts
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kelly Halpin, Applicant
Self-represented
Ken Hagerman Enterprises Ltd. o/s Bickell Auto Parts, Respondent
No one appearing
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2This Interim Decision is in being issued in response to the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) asking for an order requiring the respondent to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession.
3On September 17, 2013, the Tribunal issued Notice of Hearing scheduling this Application for a hearing on March 24, 2014. The Notice of Hearing explains to the parties their disclosure obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”). It states in part:
STEP ONE: Disclosure of Arguably Relevant Documents (Rule 16.1)
By October 8, 2013, you must send the other parties a copy of all documents you have in your possession that may be relevant to the issues raised in the case, except documents that are privileged. You must send the HRTO a completed Statement of Delivery (Form 23) confirming that you sent the documents to the other parties. Do not send the documents to the HRTO at this time. [Emphasis in original.]
4On January 13, 2014, the applicant filed an RFOP. It states that the respondent has not complied with Rule 16.1; she has received no documents from it. She seeks an order compelling the respondent to deliver to her the arguably relevant documents in its possession. The Tribunal notes it has not received a Statement of Delivery from the respondent indicating it has provided the applicant with the arguably relevant documents in its possession. The respondent has not filed a response to the applicant’s RFOP and the deadline for doing so has now passed.
5Both parties to an application are entitled to receive a copy of any arguably relevant documents in the other party’s possession. This disclosure obligation is designed to ensure that parties have an opportunity to collect the evidence they need to prepare to present their case. By failing to comply with Rule 16.1 the respondent is frustrating that purpose. The RFOP is granted.
6Rule 5.6 of the Rules says:
5.6. Where a party fails to deliver material to another party or person as required by these Rules, the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material, or may take any other action it considers appropriate.
7If the respondent does not comply with this Interim Decision the Tribunal may refuse to consider its evidence and submissions at the hearing.
8Because the applicant has not received the respondent’s arguably relevant documents, her deadline for disclosure pursuant to Rules 16.2, 16.3, 17.1 and 17.2 is extended to February 26, 2014.
9I am not seized.
DECISION
10By February 16, 2014, the respondent shall deliver to the applicant a list of all arguably relevant documents relating to the matters raised in the Application that are in its possession and a copy of each document. The respondent shall also file a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) with the Tribunal confirming delivery of the list and documents.
11If the respondent does not comply with paragraph 10 above then the Tribunal may refuse to consider its evidence and submissions at the hearing.
12The applicant’s deadline for disclosure pursuant to Rules 16.2, 16.3, 17.1 and 17.2 is extended to February 26, 2014.
Dated at Toronto, this 7^th^ day of February, 2014.
“Signed by”
Ruth Carey
Member