Reece v. City of Toronto, 2017 HRTO 1153

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Leonard Reece Applicant

-and-

The City of Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 6, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1153 Indexed as: Reece v. City of Toronto

APPEARANCES

Leonard Reece, Applicant Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent Sharmila Clark, Counsel

1This is an Application filed 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 race, colour and ethnic origin. This Interim Decision addresses two requests made by the parties. The hearing of this matter is scheduled for September 11 and 12, 2017.

Summary Hearing Request Denied

2The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing on August 18, 2017. This request is denied. Pursuant to Rule 19.5A, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision not to hold a summary hearing following a party's request, and I decline to do so. The respondent may make submissions regarding whether the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success following the conclusion of the applicant’s evidence, including cross-examination. See Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, 2011 HRTO 1777

Production Request Denied

3As the Tribunal noted in an Interim Decision, dated November 25, 2016, following a summary hearing in this matter, a key issue is whether the applicant passed or failed a data entry test. See 2016 HRTO 1494. The respondent states that he did fail the test, which is why the applicant did not continue in the hiring process. The applicant denies that he failed the test and alleges the respondent altered his test scores in order to disqualify him.

4On August 11, 2017, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an order to require the respondent to produce the computer skills testing modules on a compact disc. The applicant submitted that the score reports that the respondent provided him in hard copy have been altered. Accordingly, the applicant seeks the test program in electronic format.

5On August 18, 2017, the respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order opposing the request. The respondent submitted that the test in question employs a computer evaluation tool developed by a third party vendor. The respondent does not own the evaluation tool, but uses it under license. The vendor evaluated the data entry and computer literacy tests and provided the respondent with the scores. The respondent has no access to the vendor’s evaluation program and does not have a compact disc of the applicant’s test. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s allegation that it altered his test is unfounded. The respondent submitted that it has provided the applicant with detailed information about the results of his data entry test, along with the results of the other tests the applicant was required to take in the evaluation process.

Analysis and Decision

6At 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. The information the applicant seeks is arguably relevant. However, the respondent states that it does not have access to this information and I have been provided with no proper basis to question that assertion. In these circumstances, I find it would not be appropriate to grant the applicant’s production request. The applicant’s request is denied.

Mediation/Adjudication

7I take this opportunity to advise the parties that, as is my normal practice, I will offer the parties an opportunity to resolve their dispute through Mediation/Adjudication, pursuant to Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, at the commencement of the hearing. I would be grateful if the parties would consider whether they are willing to attempt Mediation/Adjudication prior to the hearing.