Mandel v. George Brown College, 2014 HRTO 5

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Mandel

Applicant

-and-

George Brown College

Respondent

A n d B E T W E E N:

Joshua Mandel

Applicant

-and-

George Brown College

Respondent

Interim DecisION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 6, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 5

Indexed as: Mandel v. George Brown College

1The respondent has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking the production of documents from two third parties in respect of both of these Applications.

2The applicants both claim to be persons with disabilities and allege that the respondent has failed to accommodate what is described as Nonverbal Learning Disability. The allegations appear to relate to events in the 2012-2013 academic year.

3In its Request the respondent seeks the production from Dr. Clinton J. Davis and Dr. Anne Stuckley, of “all notes and records pertaining to” Joshua and Michael Mandel, “including the raw data from any testing or assessments conducted”. The respondent asks that any such Order be complied with within seven days.

4The applicants’ claim to be persons with a disability appears to be based in part on reports and assessments of Dr. Davis and Dr. Stuckley. The respondent has retained a psychologist to review these assessments and advise the respondent concerning the applicants’ claims. The respondent argues that in order to fairly assess the conclusions reached by Dr. Davis and Dr. Stuckley, the psychologist it has retained must have access to the notes and raw data underlying their assessments.

5The applicants consent to the release of the information requested for the period August 2011 to August 2013. The respondent replied to the applicants’ Response and confirmed that its request was for the entire documentary record for the two applicants. This aspect of the Request appears to be in relation to material in the possession of Dr. Davis who appears to have been treating the applicants for as long as thirteen years.

6In support of their request for all of this material the respondent asserts that the diagnoses of Dr. Davis are in question and it would be unfair for the respondent to not have access to the entire record in order to assess the validity of the diagnosis.

7At this stage I am not satisfied that it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of these Applications for the respondent to have access to the entre record of the applicants’ treatment by Dr. Davis going back more than a decade. The respondent asserts that the diagnosis is in question however the basis for that assertion is unclear at this stage. In any event it is not clear why the entire record of their treatment from the time the applicants were young children is necessary to test the validity of a diagnosis.

8On the other hand I do agree with the respondent that it is clear that more is required than the materials produced during the period August 2011 to August 2013. In particular I note that there is an assessment of Dr. Davis dated February 7, 2009 which would not be included in the material the applicants are agreed should be produced. The Order will include any notes, records, and raw data or other testing done in relation to any reports or assessments conducted since February 2009 by Dr. Clinton and/or Dr. Stuckley including any such material informing the February 7, 2009 report of Dr. Davis.

9In the event that the respondent is able to establish that they are unable to assess the validity of the diagnoses being relied on by the applicants they may renew their Requests for further production.

ORDER

10The Tribunal makes the following Order:

• The applicants will both forthwith take steps to have produced to them for delivery to counsel for the respondent, within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, all notes and records pertaining to Joshua and Michael Mandel, in the possession of Dr. Stuckley and Dr. Davis including any notes, raw data and test results in relation to any reports or assessments conducted since January 1, 2009 including any such material informing the February 7, 2009 report of Dr. Davis.

11I am not seized of this case.