Bowman v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2017 HRTO 1483

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Byron Bowman Applicant

-and-

Loblaw Companies Limited Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 9, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1483 Indexed as: Bowman v. Loblaw Companies Limited

Written Submissions

Byron Bowman, Applicant No one appearing

Loblaw Companies Limited, Respondent Gordon Fitzgerald, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the production request filed by the respondent.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code"). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent failed to properly consider his disability related needs and issues when investigating his alleged workplace misconduct.

3In its Request for Order During Proceedings ("Request"), the respondent requested production of the clinical notes and records of Dr. Conlon, the applicant's family physician.

4The applicant did not respond to the Request and the time for doing so has long passed.

Decision

5The basic principle in determining a production request by this Tribunal is whether the requested documents are "arguably relevant". The party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and the facts or issues in dispute before the Tribunal. A nexus may be established if the sought-after information goes to prove or disprove a fact or issue in dispute or provides an inferential link to support a theory of the case or line of defence. See McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220 at paras. 12-13.

6I find that the clinical records of the applicant's family physician are arguably relevant and should be produced. A central issue in this case is the applicant's medical condition at the material times and as such his medical records are almost certainly relevant to that dispute. The Request is not time limited. It is clear that the entire medical history of the applicant is not likely relevant. Accordingly the Order will be confined to documents made in the one year prior to the date of the applicant's termination.

Order

7For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondent's production request is granted.

b. Within 35 days, the applicant must deliver to the respondent the complete clinical notes and records of Dr. Conlon for the period one year prior to the date of the applicant's termination.