Armstrong v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2016 HRTO 256

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Armstrong Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Chris Madden Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: February 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 256 Indexed as: Armstrong v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Armstrong, Applicant Self-represented

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Chris Madden, Respondent Greg Bullen, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of sex, including sexual harassment, sexual solicitation and reprisal.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 22, 2015, the Tribunal directed that it would schedule this matter for hearing and also directed the applicant to comply with his pre-hearing disclosure obligations by July 17, 2015. On June 23, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking: to add a party to the proceeding, disclosure of documents and extension of the deadline of July 17, 2015 deadline to disclose documents. The respondents responded to this request on July 7, 2015. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not schedule this matter for hearing and did not address the applicant’s request. I apologize for this oversight.

The Applicant’s Request

3In his request, the applicant submitted that the activities of an employee of the organizational respondent “should be looked into” to determine whether the applicant’s rights under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been violated. The applicant also requested disclosure of the personnel files of every employee of the organizational respondent who came into contact with him, as well “the bank statements for those down the chain of command to the mailroom including credit-card payments, loan payments, line-of-credit payments between January 2014 and January 2015”. The applicant requested the contact information and resumes of all candidates that applied for the same positions that the applicant applied for with the organizational respondent. The applicant seeks the contact information of all the organizational respondent’s personnel involved in making hiring decisions for these positions and for these people to be made available for interviews. The applicant seeks access to “all members of the March of Dimes”, including their resumes. The applicant submitted that this information is required to determine if the respondent has carried out reprisals. Given the time needed to compile this information and for the applicant to review it, the applicant requested an extension to the deadline to provide his disclosure.

4The respondents submitted that it does not appear that the applicant made a request with respect to the allegation that his Charter rights were violated, a claim the respondents in any event deny. The respondents submit that the documents the applicant seeks are irrelevant to these proceedings and this request amounts to a fishing expedition. The respondents submitted that providing information about candidates would violate their privacy and that the respondents have no power to compel them to attend interviews. The respondent also submitted that it does not have access to the March of Dimes’ employee information. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s request was a fishing expedition and a tactic to delay the proceedings.

Analysis and Decision

5At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will generally order disclosure of arguably relevant documents, unless the documents are privileged or raise privacy concerns, see McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. “Arguable relevance” is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute.

6The applicant alleges that the individual respondent made a sexual advance towards him in exchange for assistance with his claim for benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The applicant alleges that he refused the advance and that he began to experience negative treatment and outcomes regarding his claim. On the face of his request, the documents the applicant seeks have absolutely no connection to the claims set out in his Application and the applicant has not explained how they are arguably relevant. Accordingly, the applicant’s production request is denied. The applicant’s request to “look into” potential breaches of his Charter rights is not clear, but in any event the Tribunal does not conduct investigations and its jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the Code.

7I note that this Application has met with significant delays and the applicant has yet to comply with his pre-hearing disclosure obligations. These concerns are addressed in the Order, below.

Order

8The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The applicant’s request is denied;

2. By no later than March 11, 2016, the parties shall advise the Tribunal of the dates in May and June 2016 on which they are not available. The Tribunal shall schedule the hearing of this matter accordingly. If the applicant has not complied with this direction by March 11, 2016, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned or as an abuse of process;

3. By no later than March 11, 2016 the applicant must deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of his witnesses and a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify. If the applicant has not complied with this direction by March 11, 2016, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned or as an abuse of process.