Howlett v. Canada Bread Frozen Bakery, 2014 HRTO 829

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Howlett

Applicant

-and-

Canada Bread Frozen Bakery and Michelle Logan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: June 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 829

Indexed as: Howlett v. Canada Bread Frozen Bakery

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Canada Bread Frozen Bakery and Michelle Logan, Respondents

Henrik Nieuwland, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is granting a request by the respondents for the production of arguably relevant documents. The Application is scheduled to be heard on September 25 and 26, 2014. The Confirmation of Hearing set a deadline of February 25, 2014 for the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents, and this was extended on consent to April 17, 2014.

2The respondents request that the applicant provide them with documents relating to his obligations to pay child or spousal support in the 12 month period prior to the termination of his employment with Canada Bread Frozen Bakery (“Canada Bread”) in December 2011.

3The applicant worked for Canada Bread as a Production Line Operator for thirteen years. His Application alleges discrimination in employment because of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

4The applicant maintains that the respondents failed to accommodate a disability he has. The failure to accommodate included a decision by the respondents to terminate his employment rather than accommodate an absence that arose from his disability.

5In his Application the applicant says that an effect of the termination and the resulting loss of his employment income was to create pressure on him from various creditors to pay his bills.

6The respondents think that the applicant was in debt prior to his termination. They say that if he succeeds in proving discrimination, then any analysis of the financial impact of termination has to take into account how indebted the applicant was before his employment ended. In support of their request for production of statements regarding his child or spousal support obligations, the respondents refer to a 2013 statement showing that he owed child support in Ontario and a 2010 statement showing that he owed child support in Wisconsin. According to the respondents, the size of the amounts owing suggest that the applicant was indebted before his employment ended.

7The applicant has not responded to the request and the time for doing so has now passed.

8The issue on this request is whether the documents the respondents seek are arguably relevant. The threshold of arguable relevance is quite low. As indicated in McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220 at paragraphs 12-13, the party requesting a document simply has to show that there is a connection between the document sought and the facts or issues in dispute.

9However, just because documents are arguably relevant (and therefore have to be exchanged by the parties) does not mean that they will necessarily meet the test of admissibility at the hearing itself.

10The documents requested by the respondents meet the test of arguable relevance. The remedies requested by the applicant include compensation for lost employment income and compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. If the Tribunal finds that the alleged failure to accommodate and termination were discriminatory, then it will examine the impact of that discrimination on the applicant. This would likely include looking at the financial impact on the applicant, and this in turn would entail looking at his financial position, including any debts he may have had before his termination. For these reasons the respondents’ request is granted.

order

11The respondents’ request is granted. The applicant is to provide the respondents with copies of all documents in his possession related to his child or spousal support obligations in the period from December 2010 to December 2011.

12The applicant is to provide these documents to the respondents within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant does not do so, the Tribunal may decide that he has abandoned his Application.