Morrison v. Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre, 2016 HRTO 679

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jennifer Morrison Applicant

-and-

Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre Respondent

-and-

Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 18, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 679 Indexed as: Morrison v. Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jennifer Morrison, Applicant Cecil Norman, Representative

Toronto Community Care Access Centre, Respondent Matthew Demeo, Counsel

1The hearing in this matter is scheduled for June 20 and 21, 2016. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request for the production of documents.

2The applicant requested production of the following documents:

a. a copy of the applicant’s complete personnel file from the date she commenced work for the respondent until May 1, 2016;

b. a copy of Denis Fong’s line file or supervisory file, including but not limited to all notes, job orders, performance expectations, performance evaluations of the applicant during the time period that he supervised her;

c. a copy of May Lin Poon’s line file or supervisory file , including but not limited to all notes, job orders, performance expectations, performance evaluations of the applicant during the time period that she supervised her;

d. a copy of the applicant’s complete medical file, including Dr. Kamille’s file and Manulife file and investigation reports as well as the respondent’s investigation reports; and

e. a copy of Suzanne Jones’ notes from her meeting with the applicant on September 25, 2014.

3The respondent responded to the above items as follows:

a. The respondent stated that the applicant is not entitled to a copy of her personnel file as of right. The respondent agreed to produce any documents relevant to the Application. It confirmed that it would produce any internal job applications for positions to which the applicant applied as well as her last three performance evaluations.

b. The respondent confirmed that Mr. Fong did not maintain a line or supervisor file for the applicant.

c. The respondent agreed to produce any and all notes of May Lin Poon that relate to her supervision of the applicant, most of which are contained in her personnel file.

d. The respondent confirmed that its Occupational Health Nurse maintains a confidential medical file. It confirmed that there was no documentation in that file from Dr. Kamille. It also confirmed that the last document placed in the file is dated June 6, 2011.

e. The respondent confirmed that Ms. Jones has no notes from the September 25, 2014 meeting.

Findings

4It is well accepted that the test for production of documents is arguable relevance.

5I find that the following documents are arguably relevant and must be produced:

a. A copy of any documents in the applicant’s personnel file for the time period from January 1, 2013 to the date of her termination, September 25, 2014. The applicant alleged harassment and discrimination “from 2013 to September 2014”. Therefore, all documents from her personnel file falling within this time frame are arguably relevant and must be produced.

b. Any internal job applications submitted by the applicant at any time during her employment are arguably relevant since the applicant alleges that the respondent passed her over for promotions “over the years”.

c. a copy of May Lin Poon’s line file or supervisory file , including but not limited to all notes, job orders, performance expectations, performance evaluations of the applicant for the time period from January 1, 2013 to September 25, 2014.

d. Any portion of the applicant’s file with Manulife that is in the possession of the respondent as well as any investigative reports produced by Manulife or the respondent with respect to the applicant’s Manulife claims.

6As for the rest of the applicant’s production request, the respondent has either confirmed that the documents do not exist or I am not persuaded that the requested documents are arguably relevant because they fall outside the timeframe covered by this Application.

Order

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s production request is granted in part.

b. The respondent must produce the materials listed in para. 5 above to the applicant in advance of the May 30, 2016 deadline in order to provide the applicant with a chance to review them and determine which documents, if any, the applicant will rely upon in the hearing. Therefore, the respondent must produce the documents listed in para. 5 to the applicant by May 24, 2016.

c. The deadline for the parties to file the pre-hearing disclosure required under Rule 16.2 and Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure remains May 30, 2016.

d. It appears that the applicant has not filed with the Tribunal the particulars I ordered in my last Interim Decision. She must file these particulars immediately and no later than May 20, 2016.