Ken Rempel v. Pepsico Canada ULC and Frito Lay Canada, 2014 HRTO 530

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ken Rempel Applicant

-and-

Pepsico Canada ULC and Frito Lay Canada Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: April 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 530 Indexed as: Rempel v. Pepsico Canada ULC

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ken Rempel, Applicant Philton Moore, Counsel

Pepsico Canada ULC and Frito Lay Canada, Respondents Lorenzo Lisi, Counsel

1This is an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which the applicant alleges discrimination in employment because of disability. It was filed on December 12, 2013.

2On February 21, 2014, the respondents filed their Response in which they sought a dismissal or deferral of the Application.

3On March 5, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents from the respondents, an extension of time to file the Reply, and a stay of the respondents’ request to dismiss or defer the Application until disclosure of the documents is provided. The respondents object to the applicant’s requests.

4Under Rule 16, the Tribunal sets out rules for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case.

5The Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances. I find that the applicant has failed to establish the exceptional circumstances necessary for the Tribunal to grant the applicant’s request for early production. The applicant’s request for production is to refute the respondents’ claim that it accommodated the applicant. This is not an exceptional circumstance to justify early production. Given that the applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstance to justify production at this stage, the applicant’s request for production is denied as premature.

6In the event this matter proceeds to a hearing, the Tribunal will issue a Notice of hearing setting out the parties’ production obligations. The applicant may renew his production request following the deadline for disclosure if he believes that the respondents have not disclosed any arguably relevant documents or information sought in his Request. The Tribunal will consider and rule on the production request if and when it is renewed.

7Both parties have agreed to mediation. As such, the Application will be scheduled for mediation. If the matter does not settle, the respondents can file a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking a dismissal or deferral of the Application after the mediation.

order

8The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The applicant’s request for production is denied.
2. The applicant must file his Reply within 30 days of the date of this interim decision.
3. The Application will be scheduled for mediation.

9I am not seized.