Sloan v. Great Blue Heron Casino, 2016 HRTO 875

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zachary Sloan Applicant

-and-

Great Blue Heron Casino Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: July 4, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 875 Indexed as: Sloan v. Great Blue Heron Casino

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Zachary Sloan, Applicant Self-represented

Great Blue Heron Casino, Respondent Kathryn Bird, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s production request.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

3The Application is scheduled to be heard on September 14 and 15, 2016.

Production Request

4The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on May 26, 2016 seeking production of the following:

1. Detailed scheduling of the applicant’s table assignments and the supervisory staff associated with same, throughout the entire probation period while employed for the respondent;
2. All testing and/or reviews conducted by the Dealer Trainer throughout the applicant’s training period;
3. A copy of the comment card filed by the respondent’s regular patron “Brenda”, dated July 10, 2015, giving the applicant a positive comment on his customer service and dealing at the Four Card Poker table; and
4. The full names and addresses of thirteen of the respondent’s employees.

5The applicant maintains that the requested documents are in support of his position and critical to his Application. He also argues that he requires the particulars of employees in order to complete delivery of Summons to Witness.

6In its June 2, 2016 Response to the RFOP (“Response”), the respondent indicates the following:

1. It will provide detailed scheduling of the applicant’s table assignments and the supervisory staff associated with same within thirty (30) days of the Response;
2. It will provide the testing and reviews conducted by the Dealer Trainer within thirty (30) days of the Response;
3. The respondent does not retain comment cards and is no longer in possession of the comment card referred to by the applicant; and
4. The full names and addresses of the respondent’s employees are personal and private and the respondent cannot provide such information without the employees’ consent or an order of the Tribunal.

analysis

Production of Documents

7At 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.

8The respondent indicates that it will comply with the first two requests for production of documents, namely the applicant’s table assignments and relevant supervisory staff and the testing and reviews of the applicant, within 30 days of the Response. I am satisfied that this is in compliance with the RFOP.

9The respondent maintains that it does not retain comment cards and cannot comply with the applicant’s request for the July 10, 2015 card. I am satisfied that the respondent no longer has the requested card and I deny the request for production.

Contact Information of Witnesses

10The applicant states that he wishes to call as witnesses a number of individuals employed by the respondent. He seeks an order requiring the respondent to disclose their contact information.

11The respondent raises privacy issues with releasing the full names and addresses of its employees without their consent or an order by the Tribunal.

12The applicant has not explained why he believes the employees in question will provide relevant evidence. I find the request for full names and addresses overly broad and not sufficiently particularized.

13The applicant’s Request is denied in this regard. However, the Tribunal may revisit this decision if the applicant provides more information about the evidence he believes each of the employees may give.

ORDER

14The Tribunal makes the following order:

1. Within 30 days of the date of the Response, the respondent shall deliver to the applicant the detailed scheduling of the applicant’s table assignments and the supervisory staff associated with same and the testing and reviews conducted by the Dealer Trainer;
2. The request for the July 10, 2015 comment card is denied; and
3. The request for contact information of witnesses is denied.

15I am not seized of this case.

Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2016.

“Signed By”

Josée Bouchard Vice-chair