James v. Mooredale Soccer Club, 2016 HRTO 1446

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul James

Applicant

-and-

Mooredale Soccer Club

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 9, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1446

Indexed as: James v. Mooredale Soccer Club

Choose an item.

Click here to enter text., Applicant

Click here to enter text., Choose an item.

Click here to enter text., Respondent

Click here to enter text., Choose an item.

Click here to enter text., Choose an item.

Click here to enter text., Choose an item.

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 hearing into this this case is scheduled for November 21 and 22, 2016. On November 2, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking the production of materials from the applicant and an order excluding the admissibility of a number of witnesses proposed by the applicant and their corresponding witness statements as well as a number of documents disclosed by the applicant.

3The applicant alleges discrimination related to his resignation from the respondent in 2012 and in a hiring decision by the respondent in 2014. Specifically, the applicant was coach of the Mooredale boys’ soccer team in 2012. In December 2012, the applicant resigned his position as head coach. The applicant alleges that in 2014 he was again approached by a representative of the respondent, who canvassed his interest in returning as coach of the team, but was ultimately not rehired because of his disability. Among other things, the applicant is seeking monetary compensation including $72,000.00 in lost salary earnings.

4The respondent seeks an order excluding the admissibility of the following witnesses and witness statements as proposed by the applicant: Peyvand Mossavat, Rick Evangelista, Laura Arduini, Markus Molder, Tom Harrington, Gina Kripotos, Felicia Watters, Sarah Florini, Dwight Hornibrrok, Chad Beaulieu, Julie James, Stuart Larman,Olive James, Joe Fiorini, John James, Stuart Larman, Chris Ramsey, John Vidovich, Heather Stuart, Even Pellerud, Mahmoud Shoukri, Denise Wales, Jennifer Myers, Theresa and Chris Dudley, Sheila Forshaw, Young Kim, Bree Carr-Harris, Neil Davidson, Jamie Teixeira, Jorge Sanchez, Victor Montagliani, Dave Ashfield, James Devos, Ashley Kelly, Ray Clark, Sharon Bearpark, Roger Bilodeau, Cat Ciarallo, Alicia Brown and Dr. Mohammad Bayegan.

5Having reviewed the respective witness statements of the named witnesses, I am of the view that their proposed evidence is neither needed nor relevant to the issues before the Tribunal. Pursuant to Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may limit evidence or submissions on any issue. The Tribunal has indicated that it may decline to hear evidence from a proposed witness that is not relevant to the issues it is required to resolve or is repetitive of evidence previously admitted. See Luk v. York Condominium Corporation No. 382, 2016 HRTO 523 at paras. 26-27.

6The Tribunal promotes fair, just and expeditious resolutions of disputes. Requesting witnesses to appear before the Tribunal when their evidence is not required and relevant to the central issue of the case is inconsistent with this principle.

7The evidence provided in the witness statements by the individuals named in paragraph 4 above is neither required nor relevant to this case. It would appear that none of these individuals have any knowledge or connection to the allegations set out in the Application. While these statements may demonstrate that the applicant was a talented and respected soccer coach, this evidence has no relevance to the issue before the Tribunal and would not promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the dispute.

8Under the circumstances the Tribunal will not hear from the witnesses proposed by the applicant and identified in paragraph 4 above.

9The applicant produced the following documents that the respondent submits are not relevant to the Application:

a. Materials related to an unrelated matter, James v. York University, including the Applicant’s submissions to the Tribunal, The “testimonials submitted by the Applicant on that matter (Appendix L of the Applicant’s brief of arguably relevant documents), the applicant’s submissions on reconsideration (Appendix D of the applicant’s brief of arguably relevant documents), the Applicant’s Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the applicant’s submission on reconsideration of the Application for Leave to Appeal;

b. The materials referred to as “Media Documents”; and,

c. The results of the Ontario Youth Soccer League from 2015.

10In my view, the documents identified in a. and b. should be excluded because none of them appear to be relevant to the central issue of this case. As indicated in McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220, evidence presented to the Tribunal should be relevant to the facts in dispute so that the Tribunal can operate in a fair, just and expeditious manner.

11I am not prepared to make a ruling with respect to the document identified in c. at this time.

12The Request also seeks the production by the applicant of any documents pertaining to the applicant’s efforts to mitigate his damages by seeking alternative employment, including job search records, letters of application and any responses, as well as any documents relating to income earned by the applicant since December 2012.

13In any proceeding before the Tribunal where an applicant is seeking monetary compensation for lost income, the applicant is under a duty to mitigate his or her losses by making reasonable efforts to obtain suitable employment. In such circumstances, the applicant is only entitled to be compensated for those losses that could not have been avoided. See Piri v. Nestle Waters Canada, 2014 HRTO 435 at para. 1.

14The applicant has requested monetary compensation in his Application, including lost wages in the amount of $72,000.00. It would appear that to date the applicant has not produced documentation to demonstrate that he has mitigated his damages since December 2012.

order

15The Tribunal hereby makes the following order:

a. The witnesses identified in paragraph 4 above, as well as their respective witness statements are excluded;

b. The documents identified in paragraph 9 a. and b. above are excluded; and,

c. Within seven (7) calendar days of the date of this Interim Decision the applicant will produce to the respondent a complete list of all mitigation efforts the applicant has made to find employment since December 2012, including jobs applied to, dates of applications, interviews received, the results of any employment applications, and an accounting of all income earned since December 2012.