Brittney Poissant v. CS Wind Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 531

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brittney Poissant Applicant

-and-

CS Wind Canada Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: April 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 531 Indexed as: Poissant v. CS Wind Canada Inc.

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of age, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race and sex, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This interim decision addresses a production request by the applicant. The hearing is scheduled for July 15, 16 and 17, 2014.

3The applicant has requested an order for production of “all email correspondence between Mr. Ra (the applicant’s former supervisor) and Mr. Bang (CS Wind’s Vice President) around the time of the applicant’s termination in July 2013”. In my view, this request is over-broad and lacks particulars that would satisfy me that such documents are arguably relevant to this matter.

4The applicant has also asked for “all documents given to MJ Kim (CS Wind’s HR Manager) by Mr. Ra around the time of the applicant’s termination in July 2013, in particular that detail reasons or factors in the applicant’s termination”. The respondent has countered that these document have already been disclosed. In any event, the request is also overly broad and is speculative in nature as to whether such documents in fact exist.

5In addition the applicant has requested “all documents relating to the hiring, employment and cessation of employment (if applicable) of anyone who served to replace, either temporarily or permanently, the applicant in her former position with CS Wind, which necessarily includes, but may not be limited to, all documents relating to the hiring, employment and cessation of Mr. Nam (the young, Korean male who replaced the applicant in July, 2013)”. In this request, the privacy interest of parties who are not subject to the litigation are engaged and, therefore I am disinclined to order production, particularly given, in my view, that the request is largely a fishing expedition.

6Finally, the applicant has requested “all arguably relevant documents in HRTO-2013-14585 – Nadon v. CS Wind Corporation Inc.”. This was a case between the respondent and a former employee of the respondent that was settled at mediation. The matter before me is not framed as a systemic challenge so it is difficult to see how the documents relating to that case could arguably shed meaningful light on the applicant’s allegations of discrimination.

ORDER

7The applicant’s request for production is dismissed.