Moore v. The Estate of Lou Ferro, 2017 HRTO 1307

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Philton Moore Applicant

-and-

The Estate of Lou Ferro, personally and c.o.b. as Ferro & Company, Ellen Helden and 1312788 Ontario Limited Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart Date: October 4, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1307 Indexed as: Moore v. The Estate of Lou Ferro

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Philton Moore, Applicant Self-represented

The Estate of Lou Ferro, Respondent No one appearing

Ellen Helden and 1312788 Ontario Limited, Respondents Erin Hallock, Counsel

1This Interim Decision is written to address the applicant’s Request for Order filed September 1, 2017, seeking disclosure from the respondents Ellen Helden and 1312788 Ontario Limited and a copy of the Tribunal’s transcript of the cross-examination of Ms. Helden.

2In rendering this Interim Decision, I have also considered the Response to Request for Order filed by the respondents Ellen Helden and 1312788 Ontario Limited on September 14, 2017.

3The applicant first requests disclosure of “the full extent of the duties for the junior litigation lawyer role (courtroom lawyer) and relevant documents supporting the same”. The respondents Ellen Helden and 1312788 Ontario Limited state that they do not have any information or documents in relation to this position, as all such information or documents would have been in the possession of Ferro & Company.

4The parties already have filed extensive pleadings and documents pertaining to the issues raised in this proceeding, including in relation to the positions for which the applicant was interviewed in 2011. Further, the applicant asked this very question of Ms. Helden during her cross-examination on March 3, 2017. At this point, given that Ferro & Company no longer exists as a business operated by the late Mr. Ferro, due to his declaration of personal bankruptcy and subsequent death, and given that the remaining respondents state that they do not have any documents responsive to the applicant’s request in their possession, it is my view that no further disclosure is required at this time. At the hearing in this matter, the applicant can question Ms. Helden and any other respondent witnesses regarding the roles for which he was interviewed, and in my view, can appropriately prepare his cross-examination on the basis of the voluminous materials already filed.

5The applicant next requests “the interview notes / minutes for any or all of [certain identified employees] of 1312788 Ontario Ltd.” In this regard, the applicant notes that, while it is the respondents’ position that he was not interviewed for a position with 1312788 Ontario Limited in June 2011, it was only Ms. Helden who was in attendance at the June 15, 2011 interview and not any other employees of Ferro & Company. As a result, the applicant submits that it is relevant to know whether it was only Ms. Helden who conducted interviews when hiring employees for 1312788 Ontario Limited.

6The respondents state that such documents are not arguably relevant to the matters in dispute in this case, and they are unaware if any such documents even exist.

7I agree with the respondents that the documents requested by the applicant are not arguably relevant to the matters at issue in this proceeding, which include whether the position for which he was interviewed in June 2011 was a position with Ferro & Company or with 1312788 Ontario Limited. Who conducted interviews for other positions with 1312788 Ontario Limited at other times is, in my view, collateral and tangential to the issues raised in this proceeding. As a result, the applicant’s request is denied.

8Finally, the applicant requests “a copy of the Tribunal’s transcript of the cross-examination of Ms. Helden conducted by teleconference hearing on March 3, 2017”. The applicant states that he wishes to rely on the evidence given by Ms. Helden on that cross-examination without having to cross-examine her on those specific issues again.

9The simple response to the applicant’s request is that there is no transcript of Ms. Helden’s cross-examination. I obviously made notes of the cross-examination, but these notes are for my own use and are not producible to the parties. The applicant has attached to his Request for Order his own notes from the cross-examination, which include the specific answers upon which he wishes to rely at the hearing. However, the applicant’s own notes of his cross-examination do not constitute a “transcript” that can be utilized at a hearing before this Tribunal in the manner of a transcript of an examination for discovery or cross-examination on an affidavit in a court proceeding.

10If the applicant wishes to rely on evidence from Ms. Helden for the purpose of this proceeding, such evidence will need to be elicited by him at the hearing. He certainly is entitled to cross-examine Ms. Helden on any inconsistencies between her testimony at the hearing and her testimony from the cross-examination on March 3, 2017, but he cannot rely upon his own notes of the cross-examination as proof of what Ms. Helden said at that time. As I said, I do have my own notes from the cross-examination, and may have regard to them in determining any issues of credibility relating to Ms. Helden.

ORDER

11For the foregoing reasons, the applicant’s Request for Order is denied.