Davidson v. Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre, 2012 HRTO 1049

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adam Davidson

Applicant

-and-

Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre and Andrene Graham

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: May 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1049

Indexed as: Davidson v. Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Adam Stephen Davidson, Applicant ) Self-represented

Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood ) Shelina Ali, Counsel

Centre and Andrene Graham, )

Respondents )

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing and in goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability, ethnic origin, creed, ancestry, and reprisal.

2This Interim Decision addresses a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the applicant. Specifically the applicant requests that the respondents produce an employee list and list of volunteers at the respondent Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre (“CONC”) from 2009-April 2010. The applicant submits that he needs this to identify a proposed witness who the applicant alleges witnessed discriminatory comments as well as discrimination respecting an alleged incident regarding his dietary requirements.

3In earlier communications with the respondents and filed with the Tribunal, the applicant stated that he wished to contact two individuals named B.J. Ryan and Ralph Brendan who he recalled had been employed by the CONC at the relevant time and had witnessed the alleged discriminatory actions. The applicant requested that the respondents provide him with contact information for these two individuals so that he could call them as witnesses.

4Following a Case Management Conference on May 10, 2012, to address the applicant’s request for this contact information as well as other preliminary issues dealing with the applicant’s proposed witnesses and witness statements, the respondents confirmed that B.J. Ryan was still working at CONC and advised of his work hours so that the applicant could arrange to personally serve him with a summons. The respondents further advised, however, that CONC had never employed anyone by the name of Ralph Brendan. They also advised that B.J. Ryan’s first name is Brendan and suggested that perhaps this had caused some confusion.

5The respondents submit in their response to the RFOP that they have assisted the applicant both by providing the contact information for Mr. Ryan and in addition by adding a witness, Paul Morgan, to their proposed witness list. The respondents submit that Mr. Morgan will testify that there was no employee at CONC by the name of Ralph during the time that the applicant stayed there and that the applicant will have the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Morgan on this point.

6Subsequent to the respondents’ response to the RFOP, the applicant filed his witness list and witness statements for six proposed witnesses. He has not listed Ralph Brendan on this disclosure and has in fact identified B.J. Ryan as Brendan Ryan. It appears that any confusion has been cleared up and thus there is no longer any need for him to see an employee or volunteer list. In my view therefore it is not necessary to order the production of documents that the applicant requested.

7The applicant also has checked off “request to add a party”, but given no further details including who the proposed party would be. Given the absence of sufficient information, details or submissions on this request provided by the applicant, the request is denied.

8This Application is set for hearing on June 6, 2012. Any further procedural matters that arise will be addressed at the outset of the hearing.