Ontario Labour Relations Board
1320-99-R The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 31 now known as Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 31, Applicant v. 1249762 Ontario Inc. o/a Mega City Tiling and Maran Ceramic Tiles Inc., Responding Parties v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 25, 2000
1The Board in its decision in this matter dated March 15, 2000 directed the parties to prepare additional pleadings and indicate their positions with respect to production of additional documents. That decision noted that this panel of the Board would remain seized with determining the pre-hearing issues outlined in the decision but was not otherwise seized of this matter. This matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing and hearing dates have been scheduled on agreement of the parties for October 26 and November 20, 2000.
2The applicant set out a comprehensive list of documents it wished to have the responding parties produce. Counsel for 1249762 Ontario Inc. o/a Mega City Tiling (“Mega City”) replied to the applicant’s request by indicating that either the documents sought have been or will be produced or that the documents sought do not exist. The applicant did not take issue with Mega City’s response to its request. Counsel for Maran Ceramic Tiles Inc. (“Maran”) by two letters dated April 7, 2000 (one addressed to counsel for the applicant and the second addressed to the Board) responded to the applicant’s request. With respect to the first two categories of documents sought (documents relating to commercial transactions between the responding parties and the remaining pages of contracts between Maran and Bradscott) there were no documents in the first category and Maran provided the applicant with respect to the second category. Maran objected to producing the three additional categories of the documents sought by the applicant. In support of its refusal to produce those documents, Maran advised the applicant that it is not entitled to production of the documents and states: “Please refer to our correspondence to the Board dated March 7, 2000 with respect to the production of these documents.” Maran did not provide the Board with a copy of any correspondence in this matter dated March 7, 2000. Rather, it had responded to the applicant’s request for reconsideration in a letter to the Board dated March 13, 2000 and provided a copy of that letter with its April 7, 2000 submissions to the Board.
3Counsel for the applicant, by letter dated April 14, 2000 in reply to Maran’s submissions appeared to have accepted the position of Maran in respect of the first two categories of documents. It continues to press for production of the remaining three categories. Counsel points out that Maran’s submissions of March 13, 2000 (there was no reference to any correspondence dated March 7, 2000) related to the applicant’s request for reconsideration and did not address the items sought by the applicant in its letter of March 24, 2000.
4Item 3 of the applicant’s letter seeks documents which the applicant characterizes as documents relating to a list that Maran had already provided. As the applicant puts it: “If the information in the list is relevant, then surely any documentation backing up that information is equally relevant.” I agree. Maran provided a list to the applicant. The applicant is entitled to production of the documents that contain the relevant information on which that list was based. Similarly, item 4 seeks documents with respect to three clients of Maran in respect of two projects. The request is specific and in my view, the documents sought are arguably relevant. As for item 5, Maran submits that the documents the applicant seeks can be obtained from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The applicant seeks to obtain copies of documents that Maran had filed with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Counsel for the applicant states in his letter of April 14:
Maran apparently bases its objection to producing all writings pertaining to filings with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (category 5) on the fact that such documents are obtainable “through a simple request to the Ministry:” The union knows of no legal ground which relieves a party to proceedings before the Board of its duty to produce materials pursuant to sections 1(5) and 69(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and a decision of the Board because those materials may be available from other sources, public or not.
For example, if some of the facts within the knowledge of a responding party included a deed registered in a Registry Office, the public availability of that document would not act to eliminate the responding party’s obligation to produce the deed. Here, the union submits that writings related to filings with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations are material to this matter and are, consequently, producible by Maran, regardless of whether or not they are elsewhere accessible.
I agree with counsel for the applicant.
5I am satisfied that Maran should produce for inspection the documents requested by the applicant in items 3, 4 and 5 of the Maran Ceramic Tiles section of its letter to the Board dated March 24, 2000. The hearing in this matter is scheduled to commence on October 26, 2000. Therefore, I direct Maran to produce the following documents for inspection by the applicant on or before Friday October 13, 2000:
a) All documents, including, but not limited to, all invoices, bills of sale, receipts, orders, etc. relating to the businesses named on the document appended to the letter dated March 13, 2000 from counsel for Maran and entitled “Suppliers List as of 1996 to Last Supply”;
b) All writings related to the clients of Maran noted on the second page of the above-noted letter; that is, Corporation of the City of Burlington, V.D.C. Contracting and Bradccot [sic] Construction for projects at the North East Burlington Community Centre and Library and the St. Monica Elementary School;
c) All writings pertaining to filings with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
6As there are no other pre-hearing issues raised by the parties, this panel of the Board is no longer seized with this matter.
“Harry Freedman”
for the Board