Kranendonk v. Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2016 HRTO 768

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Kranendonk

Applicant

-and-

Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: June 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 768

Indexed as: Kranendonk v. Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Kranendonk, Applicant

Stephanie Pope, Counsel

Loyalist College of Applied Arts and Technology, Respondent

Maureen A. Houston, Counsel

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”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) filed by the applicant seeking the production of a number of documents as identified in Schedule “A” of the applicant’s Request.

2The applicant states that the documents contemplated in Schedule “A” of the Request are all arguably relevant to the proceeding.

3It is understood that the documents identified at numbers 1 and 14 in Schedule “A” have been substantially disclosed to the applicant. The respondent has agreed to disclose any further similar documents that it may have in its possession.

4It is understood that the respondent has agreed to disclose the documents identified at number 8, 10 and 11 in Schedule “A”.

5It is understood that of the documents identified at number 9 in Schedule “A”, the respondent has agreed to disclose the Standard Workload Formulas issued to the applicant. As for the Standard Workload Formulas issued to other professors, I am not satisfied that these documents are arguably relevant to the issues raised by this Application and accordingly, no Order in respect of them will be made at this stage.

6As for the documents identified at number 7 of Schedule “A”, as I understand it, the applicant’s employment has not been changed in any manner. As such, these documents concern a change in employment status which change is mere speculation. No order in respect of them will be made at this stage.

7The documents identified at numbers 2 through 6 of Schedule “A” relate to security at the College and are health and safety issues covered by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these matters and as such they cannot be properly considered to be issues in dispute before the Tribunal. No Order in respect of these documents will be granted at this stage.

8This matter is scheduled for hearing on June 13 and 14, 2016 in Kingston. The June 13, 2016 hearing date is cancelled. The hearing will proceed on June 14, 2016. The parties have agreed to mediation-adjudication.