Labor & Employment Law

Production of Documents at the Human Rights Tribunal

By Michael Fitzgibbon

Without delving too deeply into this, after reading the recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Henry v. Faurecia Automotive Seating Canada Ltd. (May 13, 2008, HRTO) I began considering the issue of requests for production of documents by responding parties to human rights complaints.    

The decision is quite brief, however it appears that the issue was whether the termination the applicant was discriminatory and contrary to the Code.  Specifically, according to this decision, "the Commission alleges that the respondents terminated the complainant?s employment without first determining whether he could be accommodated to the point of undue hardship."

According to the decision:

It is agreed that on or around July 22, 2002 the complainant applied for long term disability benefits (?LTD benefits?) through Faurecia?s insurance company, Clarica Life Insurance Company, its successor being Sun Life Assurance Company (?Sun Life?).

The parties agree that on or around September 26, 2002 the complainant was informed that his application for LTD benefits had been denied for the reason that the complainant was not disabled to the extent required by the terms of the insurance policy and, therefore, was not entitled to LTD benefits.

It is agreed that on or around September 24, 2003, the complainant brought suit against Sun Life seeking, among other things, a declaration that he had been disabled within the meaning of the insurance policy since August 1, 2002 and that the parties to the suit subsequently reached a settlement.

The respondent requested production of "any and all documents in [the complainant's] possession, including documents produced and received by way of documentary discovery, examination for discovery, transcripts and materials pertaining to settlement in the civil action that he instituted against Sun Life.  The respondents also ask for an order compelling Sun Life to produce those same documents?.

The Tribunal held that documents that are "arguably relevant" are to be produced and that, "to succeed, the respondents ?must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and issues in dispute before the Board.? 

The test focuses on the issues in dispute and the nature and scope of the request.  The well worn term "fishing expedition" is one that is frequently invoked by decision makers in rejecting requests for production that are overly broad.  Thankfully, this term was not used by the Tribunal in this case in coming to its conclusion.

Full post as published by Thoughts from a Management Lawyer on May 22, 2008 (boomark / email).