HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Adriana Mancera
Applicant
-and-
Arun Narang Dentistry Professional Corporation
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Mancera v. Arun Narang Dentistry Professional Corporation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Adriana Mancera, Applicant
Megan Evans Maxwell, Counsel
Arun Narang Dentistry Professional Corporation, Respondent
Symon Zucker, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) on April 13, 2015, seeking the production of documents from the applicant. The respondent seeks the production of a diary in which the applicant may have recorded manicure appointments, as well as her income tax, credit card and bank records from January 2014.
3The respondent argued that there is reason to believe that the applicant was scheduling manicure appointments when she should have been performing her duties with the respondent.
4In a Case Assessment Direction issued on May 7, 2015, I made a number of comments about the Request as framed as well as the Response to it filed by the applicant. I did observe that if the request of the respondent had been for any documentation of the manicure business prior to the applicant’s termination in December 2013, it would likely have been ordered as such documents appear to be arguably relevant to an aspect of the respondent’s defence which is essentially that the applicant was moonlighting while claiming to be off work sick. I also noted that the applicant appeared to agree that evidence post termination income was arguably relevant to the issues or remedy.
5On May 8, 2015, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal seeking a review of the CAD. The nature of the request as it relates to documentary records of the manicure business remains ambiguous as previously noted, but given the assertions made in support of it I assume that the respondent is seeking an Order for production of these materials both before and after January 1, 2014.
6The applicant did not respond to this aspect of the Request, assuming as I did that the Request was for such materials after January 1, 2014. Accordingly the applicant’s only response was that she did not end up operating the manicure business after she was terminated. The applicant has not responded to the respondent’s letter of May 8, 2015.
7As previously indicated it appears that any documentation of alleged manicure appontments prior to the applicant’s are arguably relevant to an issue in dispute in this case. If the applicant has any further submissions to make on this point she should provide same within 7 days of the this Interim Decision failing which she should produce this documentation, if it exists, for the 4 month period prior to the applicant’s dismissal.
Post- termination income
8The respondent reiterated its request for further documentation of the applicant’s post dismissal income. The applicant has agreed to procude income tax documentation for the years 2013 and 2014. The respondent also sought all bank and credit card statements. The respondent relies on what it asserts is evidence of the applicant operating a manicure business while employed by them. The applicant states that she did not continue with this business.
9I am satisfied that the production of the applicant’s bank statements are arguably relevant to this issue in addition to the applicant’s income tax records which she has already acknowleged are arguably relevant. I do not agree that the decision cited why the applicant, Moore v. Ferro & Company, 2013 HRTO 1972, stands for the proposition that personal bank statements will never be ordered and are always “unnecessarily intrusive”. In my view given the respondents’ defence and despite the applicant’s position on the issue such documents are arguably relevant to an issue in dispute and should be produced.
10The Tribunal makes the following Orders:
a. If the applicant has any further submissions to make in response to the request for documentations related to a manicure business prior to termination she should provide same within 7 days of the this Interim Decision failing which she must produce this documentation, if it exists, for the 4 month period prior to the applicant’s dismissal within 14 days of the date of this Order.
b. The applicant will produce her banking statements for the period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015, within 14 days of the date of this Order.
11I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 28^th^ day of May, 2015.
“Signed By”
David Muir
Vice-chair