Smoke v. Columbia Private Secondary School Inc., 2014 HRTO 832

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jessic Smoke

Applicant

-and-

Columbia Private Secondary School Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: June 5, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 832 Indexed as: Smoke v. Columbia Private Secondary School Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jessica Smoke, Applicant

Self-represented

Columbia Private Secondary School Inc., Respondent

No one appearing

1This is an Application filed on October 20, 2010 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 and sex (pregnancy).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for an Order During Proceedings filed by the applicant on May 3, 2014. The respondent did not file a response to the request and the time for doing so has passed.

3The applicant seeks to amend her Reply and the production of certain documents. Regarding the amendment request, the applicant submitted that she wishes to address issues set out in the Response in further detail, as she did not address all of the points made in the Response in her Reply. Regarding the production request, the applicant seeks the Columbia International College Staff Handbook for September 2012 (the Handbook) given to her at the time of her employment, her complete employee file, weekly staff schedules to compare time/day/scheduled shifts that are in dispute and certain timesheets.

Analysis and Decision

4The applicant stated generally how she wishes to amend her Reply, but did not state what the proposed amendments would be, as is typically expected with an amendment request. The Tribunal cannot evaluate whether the amendments the applicant seeks to make are appropriate without knowing what the proposed amendments actually are.

5At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will generally order disclosure of arguably relevant documents, unless the documents are privileged or raise privacy concerns, see McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. "Arguable relevance" is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute. A finding that a document is arguably relevant does not imply that the document will actually found to be relevant or admissible at a hearing.

6The applicant did not explain how these documents are arguably relevant to the issues arising in this Application. In my view, the Handbook is clearly arguably relevant, as the respondent relies on the Handbook to support its position that the applicant was aware of attendance reporting procedures that were central in the decision to dismiss the applicant. On the face of the Application, Response and Reply, however, it is not clear that any of the other documents are arguably relevant. In particular, the pleadings do not indicate that scheduling is an issue in this matter. It is also insufficient for the applicant to request her "employment file". Rather, she must state the documents she expects are contained in her employment file and explain why they are arguably relevant.

Order

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The applicant's request to amend her Reply is denied; and,
2. The respondent shall deliver to the applicant a copy of the Columbia International College Staff Handbook for September 2012, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized.