Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon

The Tribunal held that the complainant must produce all arguably relevant existing documents specified (including Dr. Sallamas records, updated Dr. MacDonald records, Service Canada/EI communications, Costco employment records from 2014, existing mitigation records, relevant passport/travel pages if available, T4s and Notices of Assessment 2015–2019, and the Manulife short-term disability claims file), that a party is not required to create new documents summarizing mitigation or travel expenses, that complete tax returns are overly broad but Notices of Assessment for 2015–2019 must be produced subject to limited redactions with explanations, and that disputed redactions must be...

Citation
2020 CHRT 19
Parties
Complainant: Tesha Peters; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent (corporate): United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.; Respondent (individual): Linden Gordon
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Complaint (discrimination: Disability, Sex) / Interim Ruling on Pre Hearing Disclosure and Redaction Disputes
Outcome
Interim ruling ordering specified disclosure with limits and setting process and timelines for redaction disputes
Legal Topics
Document Production, Medical Records Disclosure, Redactions, Mitigation of Loss, Tax and Income Verification, Procedural Compliance and Timelines
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Administrative Law Privacy Law Evidence and Disclosure Document Production Medical Records Disclosure Redactions +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesha Peters

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd.

Respondent (corporate)

Linden Gordon

Respondent (individual)

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Complaint (discrimination: Disability, Sex) / Interim Ruling on Pre Hearing Disclosure and Redaction Disputes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant must produce medical records from a US treating physician and unredacted medical and disability files
  2. 2 Whether the complainant must produce tax returns versus Notices of Assessment
  3. 3 Scope of disclosure relating to mitigation efforts and whether a party must create records

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the complainant must produce all arguably relevant existing documents specified (including Dr. Sallamas records, updated Dr. MacDonald records, Service Canada/EI communications, Costco employment records from 2014, existing mitigation records, relevant passport/travel pages if available, T4s and Notices of Assessment 2015–2019, and the Manulife short-term disability claims file), that a party is not required to create new documents summarizing mitigation or travel expenses, that complete tax returns are overly broad but Notices of Assessment for 2015–2019 must be produced subject to limited redactions with explanations, and that disputed redactions must be...

Court Disposition

Interim ruling ordering specified disclosure with limits and setting process and timelines for redaction disputes

Orders

  • Produce all notes and reports related to Ms. Peters' treatment by Dr. Tarek Mohamed Sallamas (ordered previously; produce by July 6, 2020 per decision and further directions)
  • Provide an unredacted copy of the partially redacted document from Dr. Steven MacDonald's file by July 13, 2020 and update disclosure of all Dr. MacDonald records from Jan 1, 2011 to present by July 31, 2020 and thereafter before the hearing if more records exist