Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp., 2016 HRTO 1084

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Blossom Batchelor

Applicant

-and-

Woodbridge Foam Corp. (Kipling Branch) and Bill O’Brien

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: August 15, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1084 Indexed as: Batchelor v. Woodbridge Foam Corp.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Blossom Batchelor, Applicant Self-represented

Woodbridge Foam Corporation, Respondent Matthew Demeo, Counsel

1On July 19, 2016, the applicant has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking to reactivate this Application following the conclusion of the other proceeding to which the Application was deferred. She also requests that her Application be amended and that the Tribunal order production of specific documents. In their Response to the Request, the respondents do not oppose the request to reactivate or amend, but object to the production request on the basis that it is premature.

Decision

Reactivation and Amendment

2The Tribunal has reviewed the request to reactivate and the request to amend. In light of the respondents’ position that it does not oppose these requests, both are granted.

Production

3Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure set out rules for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case.

4Under the Rules, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances, such as where a respondent is unable to file a Response or the applicant is not able to ascertain the identity or contact information for a proposed respondent. The applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstances in this case.

5The applicant’s request for production at this stage is denied as premature.

order

6The Tribunal makes the following orders:

a. The applicant’s request to reactivate her Application is granted.

b. The respondent is directed to file its Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

c. The applicant’s request to amend her Application, as set out in Schedule A to her July 19, 2016 Request for an Order During Proceedings, is granted.

d. The applicant’s request for production of document is denied.