Biron v. Sportsman Motel 2428525 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 771

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shania Biron

Applicant

-and-

Sportsman Motel 2428525 Ontario Inc. and Northwest Investment Corp.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: June 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 771 Indexed as: Biron v. Sportsman Motel 2428525 Ontario Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Shania Biron, Applicant Self-represented

Sportsman Motel 2428525 Ontario Inc. and Northwest Investment Corp., Respondents No submissions filed

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents filed a joint Response.

2A Notice of Hearing was issued by the Tribunal on March 25, 2015, scheduling a hearing in Sault Ste. Marie for September 3, 2015.

3On May 11, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). In it, the applicant requests production of telephone records, for the month of September 2014, of Faisal Malik, Arslan Malik, 112834 Ontario Inc. o/a Gloria’s Motel, 2428525 Ontario Inc. o/a Sportman’s Motel, and 8532915 Canada Ltd. She submits that the telephone records will prove that certain conversations took place. The telephone numbers for Faisal Malik and Arslan Malik were set out in the RFOP.

4The respondents have not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.

ANALYSIS

5The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to order production of documentation that is arguably relevant to the proceeding. The Tribunal has held in numerous cases that the test for production of documents is “arguably relevant”, which is a low threshold. See Labao v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 723 at paras. 17 to 19 and Lampi v. Princess House Products Canada Inc., 2008 HRTO 1 at para. 10. The Tribunal has held that finding that a document is arguably relevant for production does not mean that such information will necessarily be admissible as evidence at the hearing on the merits.

6With respect to the applicant’s RFOP, I decline to order production of the telephone records of Faisal Malik, 1123834 Ontario Inc. o/a Gloria’s Motel, and 8532915 Canada Ltd. There are no allegations that Faisal Malik conversed by telephone with the applicant. 112835 Ontario Inc. o/a Gloria’s Motel and 8532915 Canada Ltd. are not mentioned or referred to in these pleadings and I fail to see how their telephone records are relevant to the issues in the Application.

7In her Application, the applicant submits that Arslan Malik had a telephone conversation with her on September 23, 2014 at approximately 1:00 p.m. The Response sets out a denial of what the applicant alleges was said on September 23, 2014, but does not agree or deny that a telephone conversation took place between Arslan Malik and the applicant.

8At this point, and in the absence of response from the respondents, I find that the applicant’s request for the telephone records for Arslan Malik and the corporate respondent is arguably relevant to the issues in dispute for September 23, 2014, the date upon which the applicant alleges there was a telephone conversation, rather than for the entire month of September. As the applicant did not allege whether Mr. Malik’s telephone call was from the corporate respondent or the number attributed to him on the RFOP, the respondents are to produce telephone records for Mr. Malik at the telephone number set out in the RFOP as well as from the corporate respondent.

ORDER

9Accordingly, the Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall produce to the applicant the telephone records for Arslan Malik (the telephone number set out in the RFOP) and the corporate respondent for September 23, 2014.

10I am not seized with this matter.