HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Katherine Saucier
Applicant
-and-
Caisse Populaire North Bay Limitée and Norman St. Amour
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Indexed as: Saucier v. Caisse Populaire North Bay Limitée
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Katherine Saucier, Applicant
Self-represented
Caisse Populaire North Bay Limitée and Norman St. Amour, Respondents
Noëlle Caloren, Counsel
1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”) on the basis that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide.
3The applicant responded to the NOID and provided submissions on the issue of delay. She submits that she was late in filing her Application due to medical issues and stress caused by her termination.
4By way of Case Assessment Direction issued on May 19, 2017, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that it appears that some or all of the allegations may be untimely.
5This Interim Decision determines a Request for an Order During Proceedings in which the respondents seek an order for production by the applicant of a number of materials by August 1, 2017. The applicant filed a response opposing the Request.
The Request
6The respondents seek an order requiring the applicant to produce a complete list of all mitigation efforts made to find employment since October 16, 2015, including jobs applied to, dates of applications and materials filed for such applications. They also request that the applicant produce complete Employment Insurance (“EI”) records, including records showing the amount and nature of EI or other benefits received by the applicant since October 16, 2015.
7I do not find it appropriate to order the production of documents at this stage of proceedings.
8Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. It is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet been sent out.
9I am not persuaded that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant an order at this early stage of the proceedings. The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held and the respondents have not persuaded me that an order for production of the requested documents is necessary at this stage of the process. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances such as when production is necessary for a respondent to file a Response. See Hashi v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 869.
10In any event, as set out in the Tribunal’s May 19, 2017 CAD directing the preliminary hearing, it is the applicant who bears the onus of proving that the delay was incurred in good faith. The Tribunal has consistently ruled that it requires medical evidence that the medical condition was so debilitating that it prevented the applicant from pursuing his or her legal rights under the Code. The parties may make submissions at the preliminary hearing on whether the medical information submitted by the applicant meets this onus and supports her claim that she was incapable of filing her Application in a timely way.
ORDER
11The respondents’ Request is denied at this time.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of August, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jennifer Khurana
Vice-chair