Brittney Poissant v. CS Wind Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 844

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: June 9, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 844 Indexed as: Poissant v. CS Wind Canada Inc.

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 Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) by the applicant. The hearing is scheduled for July 15, 16 and 17, 2014. In the circumstances it is unnecessary for the respondent to file a Response to the RFOP.

3The RFOP requests several orders:

Define and Narrow the Issues

4It is unclear what, if any, order the applicant is seeking; however, to the extent an order is sought this is a matter that can be addressed by the adjudicator at the hearing.

Timeliness and Relevancy of Arguably Relevant Documents Submitted to the Respondent

5These matters can be addressed by the adjudicator at the hearing who can address the prejudice to the respondent, if any, in the late disclosure of arguably relevant documents by the applicant and/or the relevance of such documents where the applicant intends to rely on them. There is no obvious basis to depart from the normal requirements for the introduction of expert evidence and expert witnesses. The applicant should be prepared to comply with the normal requirements subject to the direction from the adjudicator at the hearing.

Vary Interim Decision with Respect to Production dated April 11, 2014

6I have reviewed the applicant’s submissions and am satisfied that there is no basis for varying the production order dated April 11, 2014.

The Order of Evidence and Types of Questions Permitted to Ask the Witnesses

7These are matters to be decided upon by the applicant in the presentation of her case subject to the rules of evidence and subject to directions by the adjudicator at the hearing.

Request for Further Production of Relevant Documents

8The applicant requests further production in the form of charts, tables and information sheets in the respondent’s possession. The applicant indicates that this material “can indicate whether racism is systematic at the respondent.” The Application is not framed as a systemic challenge so it is difficult to see how the documents requested could shed light on the applicant’s allegations of discrimination. The request is denied.

Amend the Style of Cause

9The applicant requests to amend the style of cause to add eleven “also-known-as” names of the respondent. This can be dealt with by the adjudicator at the hearing. The applicant should be prepared to provide evidence that the respondent identifies itself with the various operating names identified and that it is necessary to include those names in the style of cause “for enforcement purposes”.