HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Nepthys Aberdeen
Applicant
-and-
Governing Council of the University of Toronto
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Aberdeen v. University of Toronto
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Nepthys Aberdeen, ) Self-represented Applicant )
Governing Council of the ) University of Toronto, ) Sari Springer, Counsel Respondent )
1The applicant filed an Application on May 31, 2010 under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal in the areas of services, goods and facilities on the basis of sex, race, ethnic origin and disability.
2This Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s March 5, 2012 Request for an Order during Proceedings for production of evidence (the “Request”) that is in the possession of the Toronto Police Service which is not a party to this Application. This Request relates to evidence with respect to injuries sustained by the non-parties Officer Hertle and Officer Johnston two employees of the respondent. The applicant had previously made a request to the Toronto Police Sevice pursuant to privacy legislation for the disclosure of the evidence contained in the police file. The Toronto Police Service disclosed all of the documents except those relating to the two officer’s injuries. These are the documents she seeks production from in her Request.
3On March 21, 2012 the respondent filed a Form 11 Response to the Request in which the University, Officer Hertle and Officer Johnston each consent to the Request but ask the Tribunal to make specific Orders to ensure that the evidnce is only used for the purposes of the hearing and that the evidence should not be disclosed or used for any other purpose.
4The Toronto Police Service has not filed a Form 11 Response to the applicant’s Request.
THE LAW
5The Tribunal’s Rules provides that it has the power to compel the production of documents in the possession of non parties:
1.7 In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
… p) require a party or other person to produce any document, information or thing and to provide such assistance as is reasonably necessary, including using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce the information in any form;
6In these circumstances I find that it is appropriate to Order that the Toronto Police Service produce to the applicant the evidence that she seeks. I have already found these documents to be arguably relevant in an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 137.
7I have considered the respondent’s request that the Tribunal make an Order to ensure the confidentiality of the evidence produced and I find that it is appropriate to do so. The nature of the evidence is with respect to injuries allegedly incurred by two other non-parties, who are employed by the respondent. In such circumstances it is appropriate for the Tribunal to make an Order pursuant to its powers under Rules 3.4 and 3.11
ORDER
8The Tribunal Orders:
a. The Toronto Police Service shall by April 15, 2012 produce to the applicant copies of any photographs and /or injury reports, which detail the injuries sustained by Stephen Hertle and Angela Johnston on June 2, 2009;
b. Within 10 days of the receipt of the evidence produced at paragraph 8.b, the applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal copies of this evidence; and
c. 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 4^th^ day of April, 2012.
”Signed by”___________________
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair