Leena Luthra v. CAPREIT Limited Partnership, 2015 HRTO 1200

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leena Luthra Applicant

-and-

CAPREIT Limited Partnership Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: September 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1200 Indexed as: Luthra v. CAPREIT Limited Partnership

APPEARANCES

Leena Luthra, Applicant Self-represented

CAPREIT Limited Partnership, Respondent Sasha Segal, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The first day of hearings took place on September 8, 2015. A second day will be scheduled by the Tribunal’s Registrar. This Interim Decision addresses production requests made by both parties at the hearing.

2The respondent requested that the Tribunal order the applicant to produce any documents relating to her job search efforts following her termination as well as any income earned since her termination. The applicant requested that the Tribunal order the respondent to produce to her copies of e-mails she sent to her supervisor, Shalini Bhutani, in regards to her performance reviews during the period of her employment (April 1 - July 10, 2014). She also requested copies of positive feedback that tenants submitted to the respondent in regards to her work performance.

Analysis

3The 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. Neither party appeared to dispute the arguable relevance of the documents requested by the other party. I find that the documents sought by both parties are arguably relevant to the issues raised in these proceedings. Specifically, the documents sought by the respondent are arguably relevant to the appropriate remedy to be awarded if the Tribunal finds a violation of the Code in this case. The documents requested by the applicant are arguably relevant to her claim that the respondent did not terminate her solely for performance issues but instead that her disability was a factor in her termination.

ORDER

4The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. Within 21 days of this Interim Decision, the applicant must file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent’s counsel copies of any materials relating to her job search efforts after the respondent terminated her employment in July 2014. This includes documentation relating to any job applications she filed, any employment inquiries she made, any employment related programs she was enrolled in, etc. The applicant also must file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent’s counsel any documentation showing income she earned, if any, following the termination of her employment in July 2014.

b. Within 21 days of this Interim Decision, the respondent must file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant (i) copies of e-mails she sent to her supervisor, Shalini Bhutani, in regards to her performance reviews during the period of her employment (April 1 - July 10, 2014) and (ii) copies of any letters it received from tenants containing positive feedback in regards to the applicant’s work performance during the period of her employment.