Ann McNeil v. The Corporation of the Town of Kirkland Lake, 2001 CanLII 28098

Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal

PE-0703-00: Ann McNeil, Applicant v. The Corporation of the Town of Kirkland Lake, The Board of Police Services of the Town of Kirkland Lake, The Kirkland Lake Police Association (Civilian Members), Respondents.

Before: Mary Anne McKellar, Vice-Chair, and Members Margaret Kvetan and Catherine Bickley

Cite as: Kirkland Lake (May 7, 2001) 0703-00 (P.E.H.T.)

INTERIM DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MAY 7, 2001.

1. The Tribunal has reviewed the Applicant’s correspondence dated April 4, 2001. In this correspondence she takes the position that the Respondents have not complied with the Tribunal’s Order dated February 22, 2001. That Order, made on consent of the parties, directed the Respondents to respond to the Applicant’s request for documentary disclosure by specifying:

   1. which of the requested documents the Respondents have located;
   2. which of the located documents the Respondents agree to produce; and
   3. which of the located documents the Respondents object to producing, and the basis for that objection.

2. By letter dated March 9, 2001, Respondents’ counsel forwarded to the Applicant two lists comprising the more than 400 documents he had located. One list corresponded to paragraph 2 of the Order above, and the other corresponded to paragraph 3. The basis for refusing to produce the documents itemized in the paragraph 3 list was either that they were not relevant, or that their disclosure was precluded by the provisions of freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation.

3. There is no apparent basis for the Applicant’s contention that the Respondents have failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Order. Counsel has done exactly what that Order contemplated.

4. The Order directed the Applicant to take certain steps if she took issue with the Respondents’ rationale for refusing to produce documents itemized pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Order:

   The Applicant will further indicate to the Respondents’ counsel if she disputes their basis for refusing to produce any documents pursuant to item 3 above. Any outstanding dispute between the parties with respect to whether a document is subject to disclosure will be decided by the Tribunal.

5. It is clear that the Applicant is not satisfied with the Respondents’ response to her disclosure request. What is not clear, however, is the basis for her dissatisfaction. The Tribunal cannot assist in resolving the issue between the parties until it is articulated clearly. We therefore direct the Applicant to comply with our Order by writing to the Respondents and to the Tribunal indicating the following:

   1. whether she accepts that the items listed pursuant to paragraph 3 of our Order are exempt from disclosure;
   2. if she does not accept that any of them are exempt from disclosure, which ones she says are subject to disclosure;
   3. which documents she says are subject to disclosure by reference to the number assigned to them in the Respondent’s list; and
   4. the basis for her position that they are subject to disclosure.

6. The Tribunal understands that Respondents’ counsel has indicated to the Applicant that he has itemized all of the documents he has located in his clients’ files. The Tribunal will not normally look behind such assurances. If the Applicant believes that other relevant documents exist, she may use the Summons to Witness before the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal (Form 4) to require the production of such documents at the hearing.

Dated at Toronto this 7^th^ day of May, 2001.

Mary Anne McKellar Panel Chair

Margaret Kvetan Member

Catherine Bickley Member