AK v. Peel District School Board, 2017 HRTO 1317

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

AK Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: October 5, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1317 Indexed as: AK v. Peel District School Board

APPEARANCES

AK, Applicant Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Respondent Roy C. Filion, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 30, 2015. The hearing of the Application is set to continue on October 16, 17 and 23, 2017.

2On September 11, 2017, the applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (Requests) that her witness, Dr. T, be allowed to provide her testimony on October 17, 2017; that her evidence on the impact of the alleged discrimination be given after all of the respondent’s witnesses have provided their testimony; and that certain named individuals be compelled to attend the hearing during the time when the applicant provides her evidence on impact.

3The respondent filed a Response to the Requests on September 19, 2017.

4On September 20, 2017, the respondent filed a Request for production of Dr. T’s clinical file for the applicant, and production of the documents submitted for the applicant’s long-term disability application and appeal.

5The applicant has not filed a Response to the respondent’s Request.

Dr. T as Witness

6The respondent does not object to having Dr. T provide her evidence on October 17, 2017, provided it is given a copy of the applicant’s complete clinical file held by Dr. T.

Production of Dr. T’s Clinical File

7The respondent submits that once the applicant put her medical condition at issue in this Application, she had an obligation to disclose all documents that are arguably relevant to that issue. It submits that she must provide her full clinical record held by Dr. T.

8Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules permits the Tribunal to order production of any documentation and information in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it.

9In cases where applicants have placed their medical condition at issue before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has required applicants to obtain and produce arguably relevant medical documents from their physicians and other medical practitioners. See Bosnitch v. Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2014 HRTO 1245 (“Bosnitch”), and Baldeo v. Securitas Canada Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1395.

10In the present case, the applicant has placed her medical condition and restrictions at issue before the Tribunal. The applicant alleges, among other things, that the respondent has failed to accommodate her. The applicant also claims that the actions of the respondent have had a significant impact on her health.

11Based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the applicant’s full clinical file that Dr. T holds is arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application and must be disclosed to the respondent and filed with the Tribunal.

Compelling the Attendance of Certain Individuals

12The applicant submits that there are a number of individuals who have impacted her through their own actions. She wishes to have them attend at the hearing during the time she provides her evidence on impact so that they gain a better understanding of how their actions have impacted her.

13The respondent opposes this Request.

14The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to compel individuals to attend a hearing unless they are witnesses who have been subpoenaed. A number of the persons that the applicant is asking to have attend will be called by the respondent to provide evidence; therefore, they would be excluded from the hearing while the applicant provides her testimony.

15The applicant’s request to have the individuals she named in her Request attend at the hearing is denied.

Request to Allow Applicant to Provide her Evidence on Impact after Completion of Testimony of Respondent’s Witnesses

16The Applicant’s Request to provide her testimony after the respondent’s witnesses is connected to her request to have individuals ordered to attend to listen to her impact evidence. As I have denied the Request to compel these individuals to attend, there appears to be no reason for the applicant to split the evidence she will provide to demonstrate that her rights as protected by the Code have been breached and her evidence on the impact of that alleged breach. The request to split her testimony is denied.

Disclosure of the LTD Application and Appeal Documents

17As is stated in paragraphs 7 to 11, above, the applicant has an obligation to disclose all arguably relevant documents. The application for long-term disability benefits and the documents submitted in support of an appeal of the denial of the application would be arguably relevant to the issue of the applicant’s alleged restrictions and the issue of whether the parties have fulfilled their obligations in the duty to accommodate process. The applicant must disclose these documents to the respondent and file them with the Tribunal.

ORDER

18The Tribunal orders that the applicant obtain the following arguably relevant documents and deliver them to the respondent and file two copies with the Tribunal on or before 5 p.m. on October 11, 2017:

1. Her complete clinical file held by Dr. T including all notes, records, letters, and clinical assessments.
2. All documents submitted to the Ontario Teachers Insurance Plan for her long-term disability application, including all documentation provided by the applicant and all documentation provided by her medical professionals.
3. All documents submitted by the applicant and her medical professionals for the appeal of the decision made by the Ontario Teachers Insurance Plan to deny her long-term disability application.

19The applicant’s Request to have Dr. T appear to provide evidence on October 17, 2017 is granted. The applicant should advise Dr. T of the place and time of the hearing and advise her that she may be required to be in attendance for the full day.

20The applicant’s Request that the Tribunal compel certain named individuals to attend the hearing is denied.

21The applicant’s Request to provide her testimony on the impact of the alleged Code breaches after the respondent’s witnesses have testified is denied. The applicant should be prepared to begin her testimony on October 16, 2017.