The Toronto Police Services Board is entitled to see the medical records of a worker who filed a human rights complaint after seeking accommodation in the form of a later start time due to her sleep disorder, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled.
The decision also addresses the applicant’s allegations of discrimination and reprisal and sets the stage for a full hearing on the merits of the case. The Toronto Police Services Board had sought access to the applicant’s health records, while the applicant argued that the request was overly broad and violated doctor-patient privilege.
‘Right to defend itself’
The Tribunal granted Toronto Police’s request to obtain the applicant’s medical records from both the employer’s Wellness Unit and from the applicant’s treating physicians, noting that such disclosure is necessary for the respondent to defend against the allegations.
“A respondent has a right to defend itself,” Sand wrote. “Allegations of discrimination based on disability will in most cases lead to a respondent’s request for medical documents.”
The ruling acknowledges the sensitive nature of medical records but emphasizes that their disclosure is often required in human rights cases involving health-related accommodation requests. The applicant’s allegations pertain to her sleep disorder and its impact on her work schedule, making the medical records central to the dispute.
“The parties are reminded that the allegations pertain to an accommodation request for a sleep disorder, and the only arguably relevant documents in the file will pertain to that allegation,” Sand noted.
The ruling outlines several key orders, including the applicant’s obligation to provide consent for the release of her Wellness Unit file and to produce medical records from her healthcare providers. These records must be submitted within 60 days.
Allegation of reprisal included
The Tribunal also addressed a request from the applicant to amend her original application to include an allegation of reprisal, which was granted. The employer will now have 35 days to respond to this new claim.
Additionally, the applicant sought information regarding the racial backgrounds of employees who received performance awards, alleging that she had been overlooked for recognition despite contributing to the initiative. While the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s broader request for employee data, it did order the employer to provide information on three specific employees who had received awards, including their self-identified racial backgrounds.
“The respondent is to produce the names of the three employees who received the awards, and their self-identified racial backgrounds,” the ruling stated. “This information is relevant to the allegations.”
Request for anonymity denied
The applicant’s request for anonymity in the proceedings was denied, with the Tribunal finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold required to compromise the open court principle. It noted that the reasons for seeking anonymity would apply to many applicants bringing claims against employers, and as such, did not justify anonymizing the case.
“There must be exceptional circumstances for the open court principle to be compromised,” the tribunal wrote. “The reasons provided for the request would be applicable to most applicants who file applications against their employers.”
The decision also touches on procedural issues, such as the applicant’s intent to call a witness, which will be addressed during the hearing. The tribunal commended both parties for their attempts to resolve the case through mediation and encouraged them to continue those efforts.
With the orders now in place, the Tribunal will schedule a two-day hearing to examine the merits of the applicant’s claims. Both sides will have the opportunity to present evidence, including expert witness testimony if applicable.
For more information, see Thomas v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2024 HRTO 1300 (CanLII).
