Rodney Whitlow v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 2015 HRTO 1612

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rodney Whitlow Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: November 27, 2015. Citation: 2015 HRTO 1612 Indexed as: Whitlow v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rodney Whitlow, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Respondent Jennifer Richards, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent contravened the terms of the Minutes of Settlement reached between the parties.

2The hearing of this Application is scheduled for December 4, 2015.

3On November 9, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order seeking production of the following documents from the respondent:

a) Full Disclosure of the Investigation conducted against me by Mrs. Judy Lynn Malloy and Mrs. Katie Fairman that resulted in my eviction from my place of work for alleged inappropriate comments and behaviour in the workplace, May 23, 2014 - July 15, 2014. Facts not known to me at the signing of the Settlement Agreement on July 14, 2014 became evident through witness testimony and breach of the Settlement Agreement that have forever destroyed my livelihood in my chosen career as a Public Servant.

b) Full disclosure of the workplace assessments conducted by Mr. James Docherty and Ms. Sharona Freudmann with respect to racism and discrimination against the Aboriginal Employees in the Aboriginal Affairs Branch of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

c) Full disclosure of the identity, professional expertise, duties, and salary assigned to Mrs. Judy Lynn Malloy who was hired by the MOECC Senior Management Committee (SMC) including Hilary Thatcher of the Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to rid the Aboriginal Affairs Branch of all self-identified Aboriginal Employees.

4The respondent has not filed a Response to this Request and the date for doing so has now passed.

Analysis and Decision

5At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will order disclosure of documents if the requesting party establishes they are arguably relevant, i.e., that they may prove or disprove a relevant fact in issue in the dispute. The Tribunal may decline to order disclosure documents that are privileged or raise privacy concerns. See McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. A finding that a document is arguably relevant does not imply that the document will actually be found to be relevant or admissible at a hearing.

6In his reasons for this Request, the applicant submits that he is pursuing full legal action against the respondent for defamation and that new evidence has emerged that was not known to him at the time of signing the settlement agreement. He states that a full legal, public inquiry is in order.

7The issue to be determined on this Application is whether the respondent breached any terms of the settlement as alleged by the applicant. The applicant alleges that the terms of the settlement that have been breached are those in which the respondent was to protect his reputation, amend a T4 and release his personal documents.

8The documents requested are not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination on whether these settlement terms have been breached.

9The terms of settlement that the applicant alleges were breached make no reference to the need for the respondent to conduct an investigation or to release documents created in relation to such an investigation. In addition, the allegedly breached terms neither reference any assessment of racism and discrimination that was to be conducted nor do they reference the identity, professional expertise, duties, and salary of the individuals listed in the applicant’s request for production. The applicant has not demonstrated how the requested documents are relevant to the issues he raises in the Application.

Order

10The applicant’s Request for production is denied.

11By December 2, 2015, the applicant shall provide the Tribunal, copying the respondent, with a copy of the Minutes of Settlement that were signed on July 14, 2014.