Caldwell v. Windigo Catering Limited Partnership, 2016 HRTO 324

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Caldwell

Applicant

-and-

Windigo Catering Limited Partnership (by its general partner, Windigo Ventures General Partner Ltd.)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: March 11, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 324 Indexed as: Caldwell v. Windigo Catering Limited Partnership

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Caldwell, Applicant

Jordan Lester, Counsel

Windigo Catering Limited Partnership (by its general partner, Windigo Ventures General Partner Ltd.), Respondent

Chantelle Bryson, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request for the production of certain documents by the applicant.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her in employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, she claimed that the respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations for medical restrictions relating to her allergy to mould.

production Request

3The respondent requested that the applicant produce the following documents:

a. all medical records of the applicant’s treating medical professionals from September 2013 to date which relate to her illness precipitating her inability to work for the respondent at the Goldcorp Canada Ltd. Musselwhite Mine site including records from her family physician, any walk-in clinic practitioners, the Goldcorp Occupational Health Nurse, any emergency room practitioners, allergists and WSIB medical professionals.

b. all employment and income records of the applicant from September 2013 to date including employment agreements and job descriptions, pay stubs, T4 slips, business purchase or share agreements and personal and business income tax returns.

4The applicant opposed the respondent’s production request saying it was untimely.

Analysis and Findings

5It is well-established that a party seeking production of documents must demonstrate that the information is "arguably relevant" to the issues raised in the proceeding.

6The Tribunal has a practice of not dealing with production requests that are filed before the disclosure deadlines set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. However, the deadline for disclosure of arguably relevant documents contained in Rule 16.1 has passed in this case. It is clear that the applicant did not disclose the documents requested by the respondent as part of the arguably relevant documents she was required to disclose under Rule. 16.1. Therefore, I do not agree that the respondent’s production request is premature.

7I find that the documents requested by the respondents are arguably relevant and must be disclosed by the applicant. The medical documentation described in para. 2(a) above is arguably relevant to the applicant’s allegation that the respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodations for the restrictions related to the illness that led to her alleged inability to continue working in her position as a baker.

8The documentation listed in para. 2(b) is arguably relevant to the applicant’s mitigation efforts and to determining the appropriate remedy in this case.

Order

9For these reasons, I grant the respondent’s production request. By April 8, 2016, the applicant must deliver the documents listed in para. 2 to the respondent.