Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jonathan Cann Applicant
-and-
AS 4Finance Ltd. Respondent
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: April 29, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 599 Indexed as: Cann v. AS 4Finance Ltd.
INTERIM DECISION
This 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.
A Notice of Hearing was issued to the parties on February 21, 2014 and the hearing is scheduled to take place on September 4 and 5, 2014.
The applicant has filed a Request for Order During proceeding seeking the production of documents. At the time of its filing the Request was somewhat premature. In a CAD issued on March 21, 2014 the Tribunal directed that the respondent forthwith make their disclosure pursuant to Rule 16.1 and to the extent that it did not disclose the material sought by the applicant provide their submissions in support of its non-disclosure.
Despite the CAD above the respondent had provided submissions in response to the Request but because of an error on its part these were not delivered to the Tribunal in a timely manner.
The applicant seeks the following documents from the respondent:
All attendance, performance, coaching and disciplinary documents and all time and attendance records (including but not limited to emails and electronic communications) and payroll records for Natalie Small and Manezeh Khairi.
Contact information for Natalie Small who the applicant intends to call as a witness
The applicant argues that these documents are arguably relevant to his claim of differential treatment because he is a person with a disability. The respondent argues that the records sought are not relevant and that their disclosure would breach the privacy rights of the employees involved.
In a further CAD issued on April 2, 2014 I directed further submissions from the applicant with respect to the particular relevance of the records the applicant was seeking.
I am satisfied that the documents being sought by the applicant are arguably relevant to the issues in dispute. At this stage the standard is not high — mere arguable relevance. One of the applicant's allegations is that he was treated differently in respect of attendance management, these materials clearly go to that issue. The particular identities of the individuals identified is not particularly material and directions to protect their privacy can be made as appropriate by the adjudicator hearing this case.
As regards the request for contact information for a potential witness I find that at this point such a request is premature. I note that the applicant has recently retained representation who will provide advice to the applicant about potential witnesses and the time for disclosing the list of proposed witnesses has not arrived. In the circumstances this element of the Request is denied but may be renewed at the appropriate time if the applicant intends to call this person as a witness and is unable to locate her on his own.
The Tribunal makes the following Order:
- The respondent will produce to the applicant within 21 days of the date of this Direction, all attendance, performance, coaching and disciplinary documents and all time and attendance records (including but not limited to emails and electronic communications) and payroll records for Natalie Small and Manezeh Khairi.
I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th^ day of April, 2014.
"Signed By"
David Muir
Vice-chair