Abukadier v. 2128014 Ontario Inc. Subway Oshawa, 2015 HRTO 6

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gulixian Abukadier

Applicant

-and-

2128014 Ontario Inc. Subway Oshawa and Said Salamat

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: January 5, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 6

Indexed as: Abukadier v. 2128014 Ontario Inc. Subway Oshawa

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gulixian Gulshan Abukadier, Applicant

Richard Miller, Counsel

2128014 Ontario Inc. Subway Oshawa and Said Salamat, Respondents

Helen Carter, Representative

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent to the Application. It also addresses her request for disclosure of contact information for one of the corporate respondent’s employees. Finally, it addresses certain issues relation to witnesses that will be called in support of the respondents’ case.

2By Application filed on November 5, 2013, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her when the corporate respondent’s owner terminated her employment. The applicant claims that the respondent terminated her because she began wearing a hijab.

3The hearing of the Application is scheduled for January 14, 2015.

Request to add personal respondent

4By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed December 19, 2014, the applicant requested that the Tribunal add Said Salamat as a personal respondent to her Application. Mr. Salamat is the owner of the corporate respondent. He is named as the representative of the corporate respondent in the Application.

5The respondent did not oppose the request.

6On consent of the corporate respondent, I grant the applicant’s request to add Mr. Salamat as a personal respondent.

REQuest to Disclose contact information

7The applicant requested that the corporate respondent disclose to her the contact information it has on file and full name of its employee “Genise” a.k.a. “Janice” who was employed at the time of the incidents alleged in this case. In her Application, the applicant stated that Genise was present when Mr. Salamat made the alleged comments to the applicant and terminated her employment.

8The corporate respondent did not respond to the applicant’s request. However, the corporate respondent did include a statement that was purportedly signed by a “Janice Gillis”, a person who appears to have been present during the events alleged in the Application.

9The test for the production of documents and/or particulars is arguable relevance: Lampi v. Princess House Products Canada Inc., 2008 HRTO 1.

10In my view, the applicant’s request for the full name and contact information for “Genise” should be granted. This individual would have arguably relevant knowledge about the issues in the Application and it would be unfair if the applicant was unable to call her as witnesses because she does not have her full name or contact information. See Mallette v. Poly Fiberglass Industries (Thunder Bay) Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1942 at paras. 10-11, and Maze v. Genco Distribution of Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 898 at para. 9.

11If “Genise” is the same person as “Janice Gillis”, the corporate respondent must confirm this fact and provide the applicant with the contact information for her set out in para. 10 above.

Respondents’ Witnesses

12In response to a Case Assessment Direction, the respondent filed two statements, one by Janice Gillis and one by Helen Carter. It is unclear whether the respondents plan to call these individuals as witnesses. The respondents should take note that the witness statements themselves cannot be entered as evidence; the individuals who purportedly signed the witness statements must testify to the contents of the statements. The respondents have to date not filed a witness statement from Said Salamat. If the respondents intend to call Mr. Salamat to testify, they must provide a witness statement for him by January 9, 2015. Given that Mr. Salamat is a personal respondent and that his alleged actions are at issue in this case, the Tribunal would expect him to testify about the allegations set out in the Application.

Order

13For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to add Said Salamat as a personal respondent is granted.

b. The applicant’s request for disclosure of information relating to “Genise” a.k.a. “Janice” is granted. The respondent must deliver to the applicant this individual’s full name as well as her home address, e-mail address and telephone number(s) that it has on file for her. The respondent must deliver this information to the applicant by January 7, 2015.

c. If the respondents intend to call Mr. Salamat as a witness at the hearing, they must file a witness statement for him, with a copy to the applicant, by January 9, 2015.