HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Steven Wallwork Applicant
-and-
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: January 21, 2014 Citation: 2013 HRTO 84 Indexed as: Wallwork v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc.
APPEARANCES
Steven Wallwork, Applicant Self-represented
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., Respondent Melissa I. Roth and Ted J. Kovacs, Counsel
Introduction
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 and on the basis of reprisal.
Applicant’s Request for Disclosure of Witness Addresses from the Respondent
2The applicant requested that the respondent disclose to him addresses for several proposed witnesses.
3The respondent advised that it had the addresses, but would not disclose them without the applicant providing more detailed witness statements.
4A teleconference call was held on January 16, 2014, to address the issue of address disclosure and more detailed witness statements.
5The applicant was given time after that teleconference call to provide more particularized witness statements, and on January 20, 2014, he provided more detailed witness statements with respect to the proposed witnesses, Steve Cooper, Patrick Zednik, Chris Fagerlund and Mitch Robinson. Prior to the teleconference call, he had provided no witness statements for Karen Sabatine or Ryan McKay, and still has not done so. He also has not provided any additional detail in relation to the witness statements previously provided for Duncan Cross or Joe Fletcher, despite being given the opportunity to do so following the teleconference call.
6The respondent still may disagree with whether or not the witnesses the applicant intends to call will give evidence that is relevant to the issues before the Tribunal, but the respondent will be allowed to challenge relevance during the witnesses’ testimony at the hearing. On the basis of the witness statements in which the applicant has provided sufficient particulars, there is no reason to exclude, in advance of the hearing, the attendance of the applicant’s witnesses. As such, the respondent shall disclose to the applicant by no later than January 22, 2014, the addresses for Steve Cooper, Patrick Zednick, Chris Fagerlund and Mitch Robinson.
7The respondent need not disclose to the applicant addresses for the witnesses for whom the applicant has not in my view disclosed sufficient particulars as required under Rule 17.4 of the Rules of Procedure, namely Karen Sabatine, Ryan McKay, Duncan Cross or Joe Fletcher.
order
8The Tribunal orders:
a. That the respondent disclose to the applicant by no later than January 22, 2014, the addresses of the following proposed witnesses:
Steve Cooper
Patrick Zednick
Chris Fagerlund
Mitch Robinson
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of January, 2014.
“Signed by”
Dawn J. Kershaw Vice-chair