HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Bryn Hendricks
Applicant
-and-
Egale Canada Human Rights Trust and Helen Kennedy
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Hendricks v. Egale Canada Human Rights Trust
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Bryn Hendricks, Applicant
Self-represented
Egale Canada Human Rights Trust and Helen Kennedy, Respondents
Susan Ursel, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on 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 and contracts because of race, ancestry, disability and sexual orientation.
2The applicant alleges that the respondents violated his Code rights in a variety of ways during his tenure as the organizational respondent’s Communications and Public Relations Manager. The applicant alleges that his dismissal from this position also amounted to a Code breach. The respondents deny the allegations and filed a Request for a Summary Hearing on the basis that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. On August 10, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure of his employee file from the organizational respondent. On August 18, 2015, the respondents filed a Response to a Request for an Order opposing the Request. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request.
Submissions
3The applicant submitted that he requires his employment file because it is not clear whether he worked for the organizational respondent or another related entity and requires access to his employment file to clarify this issue. The applicant submitted that he cannot file either a Reply or a Response to the summary hearing request without this information.
4The respondents submitted that the documentation the applicant seeks is immaterial to the issues engaged in a Summary Hearing and, in any event, the respondent disclosed a copy of the consulting contract between the applicant and the organizational respondent. The respondents also disclosed copies of the applicant’s invoices for services to the organizational respondent. Consequently, the respondents submitted that there is no need to grant the applicant’s request.
Analysis and Decision
5Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”), the parties to an application are not required to disclose any documents until the Application is scheduled for hearing. The Tribunal may order disclosure earlier where it is necessary for the fair, just and expeditious conduct of a proceeding. See, for example, Johnston v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2011 HRTO 923. In my view, the applicant has not adequately explained why he cannot either file a Reply or file a Response to the summary hearing request without receiving his employment file. In any event, the respondents have disclosed the applicant’s contract with the organizational respondent and his invoices to the organizational respondent. These documents appear to provide the information the applicant sought regarding the nature of his work relationship and with whom he contracted. In these circumstances, I find it unnecessary to grant the applicant’s request for early production of documents.
Order
6The Tribunal orders as follows:
The applicant’s request for early production is denied;
The applicant shall file a Reply within 14 days of the date of this Interim Order; and,
The applicant shall file a Response to the Request for Summary Hearing (Form 11) within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of August, 2015.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair