Singh v. University of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 1873

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Bobby Singh

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto, Jill Matus and Richard Powers

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: September 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1873

Indexed as: Singh v. University of Toronto

1This is an Application filed March 25, 2009 under section 34(1) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in services and reprisal on the basis of disability. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking a production of documents over which the respondents have claimed solicitor-client privilege.

2The hearing is scheduled for October 5-7, 2010.

3Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the respondents delivered their arguably relevant documents and a list of documents over which they claimed privilege to the applicant. In his Request the applicant seeks production of the privileged materials on the basis that “the release of these potentially arguably relevant pages may provide further evidence which could change the disposition of this case.”

4In their Response to the Request, the respondents clarify that the documents in issue are emails and one memo prepared between March to June 2009, after the applicant raised concerns regarding his application to the Rotman School of Management at the University. The respondents state that all were either from or addressed to Steven Moate, Senior Legal Counsel, Office of the President, University of Toronto and intended to be confidential. Mr. Moate is described as having the sole role of providing legal advice and acting as legal counsel to the University. He does not perform administrative or other non-legal functions. The respondents argue that the documents are confidential records of communications between the University and its legal counsel and are protected by solicitor-client privilege.

5Section 5.4 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended (“SPPA”) provides:

(1) If the tribunal’s rules made under section 25.1 deal with disclosure, the tribunal may, at any stage of the proceeding before all hearings are complete, make orders for,

(a) the exchange of documents;

(b) the oral or written examination of a party;

(c) the exchange of witness statements and reports of expert witnesses;

(d) the provision of particulars;

(e) any other form of disclosure.

(2) Subsection (1) does not authorize the making of an order requiring disclosure of privileged information.

6In Pritchard v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), 2004 SCC 31, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 809, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that solicitor-client privilege is “nearly absolute” and that “exceptions to it will be rare”, at para. 18. There has been no suggestion by the applicant that the documents he seeks were created for any purpose other than seeking or giving legal advice. The applicant’s simple suggestion that the release of the documents “may” provide evidence which could change the disposition of his Application is not a reason to make an exception to the high level of protection set by the Courts. I accept that the documents are confidential communications shielded by solicitor-client privilege.

7The Request is denied.