Philippe v. The Ottawa Hospital, 2015 HRTO 1143

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rosemonde Philippe

Applicant

-and-

The Ottawa Hospital

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: August 28, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1143

Indexed as: Philippe v. The Ottawa Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rosemonde Philippe, Applicant

Self-represented

The Ottawa Hospital, Respondent

Raquel Chisholm, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2This interim decision addresses the respondent’s request for production of documents from the applicant’s Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department (“OHSEPD”) from 2010 onwards, and an extension of time to deliver the Response to one week following the production of these documents.

3The applicant consents to an extension of time for the delivery of the Response, but objects to the respondent’s request for production of the OHSEPD file.

4Rule 16 of the Tribunal`s Rules provide for the disclosure of arguably relevant documents within 21 days of the issuance of a Notice of Hearing. The Tribunal will only require parties to engage in early production of documents in exceptional circumstances. This includes where the respondent is unable to file a Response without access to the documents sought.

5The respondent submits that the OHSEPD coordinates the search for accommodations as it is the department which receives and stores the employee’s medication information including their limitations, restrictions, prognosis for return to work and the need for modified duties. The OHSEPD collects information with respect to an employee’s request for temporary or permanent accommodations.

6There is very little in the Application about workplace accommodation. The allegations relate primarily to the conduct of the applicant’s manager in relation to the applicant being unable to pick up shifts in a different department, scheduling, and the way in which the applicant’s absences from work were characterized by the manager. As such, it does not appear that production of the OHSEPD file is required in order for the respondent to file its Response. There are no exceptional circumstances which justify early production.

7The Request for production is denied as premature. This ruling does not prevent the respondent from renewing its production request at an appropriate time after the Notice of Hearing is issued.

order

8The respondent’s request for production of documents from the applicant’s OHSEPD file is denied.

9The respondent’s Response must be delivered within 30 days from the date of this Interim Decision.