Delgado v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2016 HRTO 295

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Sylvia Delgado Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: March 4, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 295 Indexed As: Delgado v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A hearing in this case is scheduled to take place on June 15 and 16, 2016.

2On January 22, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking the production of arguably relevant documents from the applicant. The applicant has not responded to the Request and the time for doing so has passed.

3In a Case Assessment Direction issued on February 25, 2016, the applicant was directed to respond to the respondent’s Request. The applicant has responded by indicating that she has no arguably relevant documents in her possession. The applicant does not address the specifics of the respondent’s Request nor does she comment on the arguable relevance of the documents. The applicant’s response is not helpful in adjudicating the Request.

4The specific requests of the respondent were as follows:

(a) all documents in the Applicant's possession or control related to her allegations that Ms. St. Clair made case decisions without emailing her and that Ms. St. Clair and Ms. Enright have actively tried to prevent her from participating in case decisions by not advising her of case developments, not inviting her to case meetings or scheduling meetings for times when she is away from the office and unable to attend, including any documents demonstrating when and where the meetings in question took place (with full client names redacted and replaced with initials and client case numbers);

(b) all documents in the Applicant's possession or control which demonstrate the alleged practice in the office for the supervisor and team to send a card or congratulate people on milestones such as weddings or births; and

(c) all clinical notes and records, from April17, 2012 to present, of any health care professional, including but not limited to Dr. S. Vaidya and D. Stephenson, who has treated the Applicant for stress.

5I have reviewed the Application and Response. Clearly some of these records are arguably relevant to the extent that they exist. The position of the applicant that she “has not arguably relevant documents in her possession to disclose at this time” is belied by the Application, which refers to emails and notes and other documents which, if they are in the applicant’s possession, appear to be arguably relevant. The applicant has also alleged that the conduct of the respondent has caused harm to her mental health and as such makes at least some of her medical records arguably relevant. In the absence of any meaningful response to the Request from the applicant, I find that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to Order the applicant to produce the documents requested to the extent that they might exist.

6The filing of an Application commences a legal proceeding which engages significant public and private resources. It is the Tribunal’s expectation that the parties to an Application will participate in the process. This includes responding to issues as they arise in the course of the proceeding. The applicant’s failure to respond to the respondent’s Request impedes the proper adjudication of this issue and indicates that the applicant may have abandoned the Application.

Order

7The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondent within 7 days of this Interim Decision and file with the Tribunal a Form 23 confirming such delivery the documents requested by the respondent in their Request filed on January 22^, 2016, and set out above.

8I am not seized.