Susan McPherson v. Lande De Silva, 2015 HRTO 1349

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Susan McPherson

Applicant

-and-

Lande De Silva

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: October 8, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1349 Indexed as: McPherson v. De Silva

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of sex, family status, marital status and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A Notice of Hearing was issued on August 11, 2015, that advised the parties that the hearing of this Application was scheduled for February 10 and 11, 2016. The Notice directed the parties to exchange all arguably relevant by September 1, 2015.

3The applicant provided her documents to the respondent by mail on August 26, 2015.

4The respondent provided his documents to the applicant by courier on September 17, 2015.

5On September 14, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order that her medical chart, held by the respondent, not be used in its entirety for the hearing of this Application, and that the respondent particularize the sections of the medical chart that he intends to use at the hearing.

6The respondent filed a Response to the Request for Order. The respondent submits that the applicant’s request is premature as the respondent has disclosed his arguably relevant documents but has not yet determined which of these documents in whole or in part he will rely on at the hearing. According to the Notice of Hearing, he is not required to exchange and file the documents he intends to rely on until December 29, 2015.

7The respondent also filed a Request for Order requesting an extension of time to exchange all arguably relevant documents.

Applicant’s Request for Order

8The applicant’s request is premature.

9As directed in the Notice of Hearing, the parties are to exchange and file the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing by December 29, 2015. Until the respondent has filed the documents he intends to rely on, the Tribunal cannot hear submissions or make determinations on the relevance of those documents.

10If, after the respondent has provided the applicant with a copy of the documents he intends to rely on and files those documents with the Tribunal, the applicant wishes to raise issues regarding the scope of the documents, she may raise those issues before the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits of the Application.

Respondent’s Request for Order

11The applicant received copies of the respondent’s arguably relevant documents within a relatively short time of when they were to be exchanged. I find that the applicant did not experience any prejudice from this delay. The respondent’s request for the extension is granted.

Order

12The applicant’s request that her medical chart, held by the respondent, not be used in its entirety for the hearing of this Application, and that the respondent particularize the sections of the medical chart that he intends to use at the hearing is denied, as it is premature.

13The respondent’s request for an extension of time to deliver arguably relevant documents to the applicant is granted.

14I am not seized.