HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
David Armstrong
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Chris Madden
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Armstrong v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
David Armstrong, Applicant
Self-represented
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Chris Madden, Respondent
No one appearing
1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of sex, including sexual harassment, sexual solicitation and reprisal. The continuation of the hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 23 and November 9, 2017.
The Applicant’s Request
2On July 11, 2017 the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings for an order requiring the organizational respondent to produce and deliver all notes taken by every work transition specialist that has been assigned to his file and all notes taken by any and all investigators that have worked for or against him during the years of 2011 and 2017, including those on contract by WSIB, any of its employees or other persons or entities that they are aware of. The applicant submitted that these documents would assist him in the questioning process and are needed if previous rulings are not overturned before the next hearing dates.
3The applicant submitted that the request should be addressed by means of an in-person hearing. The Tribunal typically deals with routine production requests such as this one in writing and in my view there is no need for additional submissions.
4The respondents did not respond to the request and the time for doing so has passed.
Analysis and Decision
5As has been noted previously in this matter (see 2016 HRTO 256), 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. “Arguable relevance” is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute.
6The applicant alleges that the individual respondent made a sexual advance towards him in exchange for assistance with his claim for benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The applicant alleges that he refused the advance and that he began to experience negative treatment and outcomes regarding his claim. The applicant also alleges that he was not considered for employment with the organizational respondent because he complained about sexual harassment. The applicant did not indicate how the documents he requested are arguably relevant to any of these issues or why he expects these documents would be helpful to him. Rather, the request is framed in extremely broad and general terms that are the hallmarks of a classic fishing expedition. I would also note that the incidents in question in this Application occurred in 2014; therefore, the temporal scope of the request is also far too broad.
Order
7The applicant’s request is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of October, 2017.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair