Antwi v. 1281871 Ontario Inc. o/a Brampton Bramalea Kwik Kab and Bir Singh, 2009 HRTO 2248

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bosscarino Antwi

Applicant

-and-

1281871 Ontario Inc. o/a Brampton Bramalea Kwik Kab and Bir Singh

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: December 22, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2248

Indexed as: Antwi v. 1281871 Ontario Inc. o/a Brampton Bramalea Kwik Kab and Bir Singh

1On March 6, 2009, the applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in services on the grounds of race, ancestry, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin. The Application named a numbered company (the corporate respondent) as well as Bir Singh, a taxi driver, as respondents.

2Both respondents have filed Responses. In correspondence between the parties, the personal respondent raised a concern that he had been mistakenly named as a respondent. After the personal respondent provided a photograph allegedly of himself for the applicant to review, the applicant was asked by the Tribunal to confirm whether he intended to proceed against the personal respondent. The applicant confirmed he did intend to proceed against both respondents.

3In satisfaction of a previous Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 701, the corporate respondent sent a copy of a letter from the City of Brampton confirming the name of the owner and current lessee of City of Brampton Taxi No. 173, the car number alleged to have been involved in the incident giving rise to this Application.

4The applicant has now filed a Request for Order During Proceedings in which he seeks an Order from the Tribunal directing the corporate respondent to “produce a master list of the names and addresses of all of its drivers, their corresponding car numbers, as well as their photographs, if available”.

5The corporate respondent has responded to the applicant’s request. It indicates that it does not employ drivers but rather that it is contracted to provide dispatch services to drivers. It argues that it would be a violation of the privacy of the drivers with whom it is in a contractual relationship to provide the information sought. The corporate respondent suggests that the applicant seek the information from the City of Brampton’s Licensing Service department, a public body.

6The personal respondent has not filed a response to the applicant’s Request for Order.

7In light of the applicant’s decision to continue to proceed against the personal respondent and, as there is only alleged to have been one driver involved in the incident, the relevance of the information sought in the Request for Order to the Application is not clear. Although not explicitly stated, it may be that the applicant is attempting to discover or confirm the identity of the person involved in the alleged incident that forms the basis of this Application. However, other than filing this Request for Order, it is not clear what other steps the applicant has taken to obtain the information he seeks.

8In addition, the Request for information is overly broad. A car number was provided early in the proceedings by the applicant as being involved in the incident in question. An Interim Decision was issued requiring the corporate respondent to provide available details regarding the car number. That information was provided. The applicant has not demonstrated that ordering the information he is now seeking will provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of a matter before the Tribunal.

9The Request for Order seeking a master list of drivers, cars and photographs from the respondent company is denied.