Davidson v. Oasis Esthetique Distribution Inc., 2016 HRTO 982

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marianne Davidson

Applicant

-and-

Oasis Esthetique Distribution Inc., Dr. Hauschka Canada and Andreas Ernst

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 26, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 982

Indexed as: Davidson v. Oasis Esthetique Distribution Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Marianne Davidson, Applicant

Gerardus Heddema, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to make a change to the name of one of the respondents to the Application and her production request.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that she was discriminated against because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She named two corporate respondents and a personal respondent to her Application. One of the corporate respondents named in the Application was “Dr. Hauschka (Canada)”.

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), the applicant sought to add “Dr. Hauschka Canada” as a respondent. Instead of a request to add a respondent, her request appears to be a request to make a small change to the name of an already existing respondent. The applicant also requested that the respondents produce various documents to her.

4The respondent did not respond to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

5The applicant’s request to modify the name of Dr. Hauschka Canada as a respondent is granted. If any further small modifications to the respondents’ names are required, the parties should raise the issue with the adjudicator assigned to hear the case at the outset of the hearing.

6The applicant’s request for the production of documents is premature. Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out a process for the disclosure of documents prior to a hearing. The Tribunal will only require parties to engage in early production of documents in exceptional circumstances. There is nothing exceptional in this case that would justify an order for early production. If the respondent does not produce certain arguably relevant documents to the applicant as part of its Rule 16.1 disclosure mandated by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant may re-file her production request for any undisclosed documents after she has received the respondents’ Rule 16.1 disclosure.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to modify the name of the respondent Dr. Hauschka (Canada) is granted. The style of cause will be amended to refer to this respondent as Dr. Hauschka Canada.

b. The applicant’s production request is denied as premature.

8I am not seized.