HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hanssan Arar
Applicant
-and-
Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited
Respondent
-and-
Unifor Local 876
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott
Indexed as: Arar v. Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Hanssan Arar, Applicant
No submissions
Cooper Standard Automotive Canada Limited and Scott Duffy, Respondents
Thomas Stefanik, Counsel
Unifor Local 876, Intervenor
No submissions
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). It is scheduled for a hearing on October 8, 2015.
2On July 6, 2015, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking an order removing Scott Duffy as a party to this proceeding and an order requiring the applicant to produce his arguably relevant documents. In particular, the respondents sought the following documents from the applicant:
a. The applicant’s 2013 and 2014 income tax returns;
b. Documents relating to the applicant’s search for other employment after his termination from the corporate respondent;
c. Documents relating to employment or self-employment that the applicant has taken up since his termination with the corporate respondent.
3The applicant did not respond to the RFOP.
Request to remove Scott Duffy
4The respondents have requested the removal of Scott Duffy as a party to this proceeding. In making this request, the respondents rely upon the well-established criteria for removal of a personal respondent as set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31 at para. 5, whereby this Tribunal applies the following factors when considering such requests:
Is there is a corporate respondent in the proceeding that also is alleged to be liable for the same conduct?
Is there any issue raised as to the corporate respondent’s deemed or vicarious liability for the conduct of the personal respondent who sought to be removed?
Is there is any issue as to the ability of the corporate respondent to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement?
Does any compelling reason exist to continue the proceeding as against the personal respondent, such as where it is the individual conduct of the personal respondent that is a central issue or where the nature of the alleged conduct of the personal respondent may make it appropriate to award a remedy specifically against that individual if an infringement is found?
Would any prejudice be caused to any party as a result of removing the personal respondent?
5There are no allegations in the Application that warrant naming Scott Duffy as a personal respondent in this matter. The allegations against Mr. Duffy are that the complaints were made to him and that he was the person who terminated the applicant’s employment. Mr. Duffy was acting on behalf of the corporate respondent. No issue has been raised regarding the corporate respondent’s ability remedy any Code infringement that may be found. The applicant has not opposed the removal of Mr. Duffy as a party to this proceeding as he did not respond to the RFOP. As such, Mr. Duffy is removed as a party. The style of cause is amended accordingly.
Production of Documents
6The basic principle in determining a production request is whether the requested documents are “arguably relevant”. The applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the documents sought are “arguably relevant” to the issues in dispute in the proceeding before the Tribunal, including the remedies sought by the applicant.
7In the Application, the applicant has claimed lost wages until he reaches the age of 65. The applicant’s attempts to find other work after his termination and any income that he has earned from employment or self-employment since then are arguably relevant to the remedies sought by the applicant. As such, the documents requested by the corporate respondent must be produced.
order
8By August 28, 2015, the applicant must produce all of his arguably relevant documents to the corporate respondent. This production must include:
a. The applicant’s 2013 and 2014 income tax returns;
b. Documents relating to the applicant’s search for other employment after his termination from the corporate respondent;
c. Documents relating to employment or self-employment that the applicant has taken up since his termination with the corporate respondent to the present day.
9The applicant must file a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) with the Tribunal confirming that these documents have been provided to the respondent.
10Scott Duffy is removed as a party to this proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of August, 2015.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Scott
Vice-chair