HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Curtis Tousignant
Applicant
-and-
Windsor Airline Limousine Services Limited o/a Veteran Cab Company and Badhane Tussa
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Tousignant v. Windsor Airline Limousine Services Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Windsor Airline Limousine Services Limited o/a Veteran Cab Company, Respondent
Patrick Milloy, Counsel
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 with respect to sexual orientation in the provision of services. The Application alleges that the applicant was subject to harassing comments and discriminatory treatment while being driven in a taxi by Badhane Tussa, the personal respondent, on December 9, 2011.
2This Interim Decision addresses the Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) made by Windsor Airline Limousine Services Limited o/a Veteran Cab Company, the corporate respondent, for the production of documents from the Corporation of the City of Windsor (City of Windsor), a non-party to the Application
3The corporate respondent filed its request on September 12, 2012. Copies of this request were served on the applicant and the City of Windsor. The applicant and the City of Windsor have not filed responses to the corporate respondent’s request.
4The corporate respondent submits that the City of Windsor regulates, trains and licenses taxicab drivers pursuant to the City’s By-law 137-2007 and that pursuant to this bylaw taxicab drivers are required to act in compliance with the Code. In addition the City of Windsor Licensing Commissioner and the Licensing Commission have the authority to investigate allegations of contraventions of By-law 137-2007.
5The corporate respondent submits that a City of Windsor Licensing Compliance Officer was contacted by the corporate respondent following the December 9, 2011 incident that gave rise to the Application and that it understands that the officer, pursuant to a mandate under By-law 127-2007, investigated a complaint made by the applicant. The corporate respondent submits that the investigating officer completed a report with respect to this investigation but neither the report or any other documents were provided to the corporate respondent.
6The corporate respondent submits that both it and the personal respondent have requested access to this report and any other documents related to the investigation under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act but have not received a response to these requests.
7Consequently, the corporate respondent requests an order from the Tribunal that the City of Windsor produce all documents in its possession concerning the applicant’s complaint to the City of Windsor with respect to the provision of taxi services on December 10, 2011 and any reports, recommendations and related documents including witness statements in the possession of the City of Windsor and its Licensing Commission.
8Arguably relevant documents were to be exchanged between the parties by September 19, 2012. The corporate respondent further requests that the Tribunal extend the time for the production of arguably relevant documents so that the documents the Tribunal might order the City of Windsor to disclose (or are obtained directly by the corporate respondent under its freedom of information application) will be considered timely.
DECISION
9The threshold for production and disclosure of documents before the Tribunal is “arguable relevance” – not a particularly high bar. There must be some relevance and the party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and issues in dispute before the Tribunal (Neusch v. Ontario (Ministry of Transportation) (2002), 2002 CanLII 46508 (ON HRT), 43 C.H.R.R. D/171 at paragraph 38. I have no difficulty concluding that documents that might be in the possession of the City of Windsor related to an investigation of a complaint by the applicant as to what happened while being driven by the personal respondent on December 11, 2011 are arguably relevant.
10The City of Windsor is not a party to the Application. However, the Tribunal has the authority under its Rules of Procedure to require a non-party to produce any document or information reasonably necessary in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before the Tribunal (Rule 1.7(p) and (q)). Accordingly the Tribunal orders that the City of Windsor produce the documents requested by the corporate respondent.
11The Tribunal recognizes that these documents may contain personal information about other parties (e.g. witness statements). However, the Tribunal has ruled privacy interests may be outweighed by the potential probative value of documents in the possession and control of non-parties to the matters at issue in a proceeding before the Tribunal. See King v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 33.
12If the City of Windsor has concerns about the release of information about third parties it may, at this stage, redact personal information. However, it remains open to the corporate respondent to make a further request by filing a Form 10, if it is of the view that this personal information is required for the purposes of the Tribunal hearing. Documents produced by the City of Windsor are exempt from the September 19, 2012 deadline for the exchange of arguably relevant documents between the parties.
13The hearing has been scheduled in this matter for March 6, 2013. The deadline for the filing of hearing documents by the parties is January 21, 2013. If the parties have difficulties in meeting the January 21, 2013 deadline because of when they receive the City of Windsor documents they may request an extension of time to file. Any requests must be made by filing a Form 10.
ORDER
14The Tribunal Orders:
That the Corporation of the City of Windsor provide to the corporate respondent all documents in its possession with respect to the applicant’s complaint to the City of Windsor with respect to the provision of taxi services on December 10, 2011 and any reports, recommendations and related documents including witness statements in the possession of the City of Windsor and its Licensing Commission.
The Corporation of the City of Windsor shall produce these documents to the respondent within 14 days of receiving this Order;
Within 10 days of the receipt of the evidence disclosed by the Corporation of the City of Windsor the corporate respondent shall deliver to the personal respondent and the applicant and file with the Tribunal copies of this evidence; and
All parties to this proceeding shall only use and/or disclose the evidence produced pursuant to this Order for the purposes of this proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of October, 2012.
“signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair