Peters v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. and Gordon
The Tribunal held that (1) the individual respondent's personnel file must be reviewed and any documents arguably relevant to his conduct, behaviour and performance produced because relevance is plausible and the individual did not object to disclosure; (2) UPS must produce Canadian documents that record or address counts and outcomes of sexual harassment complaints, informal investigations, findings and sanctions/compensation for the three-year period preceding the complainant's departure through referral to the Tribunal, because such material is arguably relevant to UPS's s.65(2) defence re…
Source excerpt
- Sexual harassment
- Document production and disclosure
- Vicarious liability
- Due diligence defence (s.65(2))
- Privilege (settlement)
- Inter-jurisdictional relevance