Amil Riaz v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 2017 HRTO 926

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amil Riaz Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph’s Health Centre Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky Date: July 21, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 926 Indexed as: Riaz v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. A hearing in the matter is scheduled for August 28 and 29, 2017.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s production obligations and its request for production of certain documents in the applicant’s possession.

The Respondent’s Production Obligations

3The Notice of Hearing advised the parties that under Tribunal Rules 16 and 17, the parties were obliged to provide the following things by no later than July 14, 2017:

a. a list of the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing (these are the documents that you have chosen to put before the Tribunal from among the documents previously disclosed by both parties) – to one another and to the Tribunal;

b. copies of each of these documents for the Tribunal; and

c. a list of witnesses with witness statements setting out the intended evidence of each witness – to one another and to the Tribunal.

4The respondent has provided its arguably relevant documents, as well as its witness statements, but has not provided the documents on which it intends to rely at the hearing.

5By no later than August 4, 2017, the respondent must deliver to the applicant and the Tribunal a list and copy of the documents it intends to rely on at the hearing or confirmation that it is relying on all its arguably relevant documents previously disclosed.

6If the respondent does not provide the above-noted materials by August 4, 2017, the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, including not permitting the respondent to present any documentary evidence at the hearing.

The Respondent’s Request for Production

7By Request for Order During Proceedings filed on May 26, 2017, the applicant requested an “Order requiring [him] to disclose [to the respondent] the documents released to him by the [Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “College”)].” The applicant made this request because the College had advised him that the documents were “being provided to [him] with the strict understanding that the information will only be used for the purpose of assisting you with your response.” The respondent consented to the applicant’s Request.

8Subsequently, on July 4, 2017, the applicant withdrew his Request on the basis that the respondent’s “Arguably Relevant Documents disclosed copies of the documents released to [him] by the College.”

9On July 7, 2017, the respondent advised that it did “not know which documents [the applicant’s July 4, 2017 letter] refers to” and that the applicant had not “confirm[ed] that all of the documents the applicant has in relation to the College have been produced.” The respondent, therefore, asked the Tribunal to issue the order originally requested by the applicant on May 26, 2017. The applicant has not responded to this request.

10I am not prepared to grant the respondent’s request. The Tribunal is precluded from relying on documents used or created in a proceeding before the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers:

No record of a proceeding under this Act and no document or thing prepared for or statement given at such a proceeding and no order or decision made in such a proceeding is admissible in any civil proceeding, other than a proceeding under this Act or an appeal or judicial review relating to a proceeding under this Act.

Section 50(6), Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 31.

11I note, as well, that the documents that were the subject of the applicant’s initial Request (and the respondent’s current request), were released to the applicant for his use before the College, not before this Tribunal. Therefore, given the strict conditions under which the College released the relevant documents to the applicant, it would, in my view, be improper to order him to disclose those documents to the respondent in the context of the current proceeding. The respondent’s request is denied.