Spooner v. Northumberland County Social Housing, 2012 HRTO 904

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Spooner Applicant

-and-

Northumberland County Social Housing and Corporation of the County of Northumberland Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Genevieve Debane Date: May 7, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 904 Indexed as: Spooner v. Northumberland County Social Housing

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Spooner, Applicant ) Jamie McGinnis, Counsel Northumberland County Social Housing ) and Corporation of the County ) Farah Malik, Counsel of Northumberland, Respondents )

1The applicant filed his Application on April 15, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in housing. This matter is scheduled for hearing in Toronto on May 29, 30 and 31, 2012.

2This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for an Order During Proceedings for production of documents and the timeliness of some of the allegations in the Application.

3The Application alleges that the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant’s disabilities when it refused his requests to transfer to a specific ground floor rental unit in June 2008, and then he made a further request to be relocated in February 2010.

4On April 19, 2012, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking for the respondent to produce a number of documents, including redacted tenancy agreements and waiting lists dating back to 2008.

5The respondents filed a Response to the Request, indicating that they had produced all of the documents sought and that it could not recreate the 2008 waiting list, which it considers irrelevant to the issues, because it is a working spreadsheet.

DECISION

6The Tribunal has the power to order a party to produce any document that is arguably relevant to the proceeding. 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.

7Having considered the respondents’ Response to the Request for Order, and its representation that it has produced the documents sought by the applicant, the Tribunal declines to make an Order with respect to the production of documents at this time, as it is satisfied that the documents have already been produced and/or no longer exist. If in fact there are outstanding production issues and the respondent has not produced the documents it claims the applicant must immediately advise the Tribunal.

Timeliness of the 2008 allegations

8Section 34(11) of the Code states:

(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2,

(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.

(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

9Based on the materials filed, it appears that the June 2008 allegations may be outside of the one-year time limit and that there may be a gap of longer than one year between the events that occurred in 2008 and those that occurred since 2010. It is appropriate to seek submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the 2008 allegations are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

10The Tribunal therefore orders the following:

a. The applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal submissions with respect to the timeliness of the 2008 allegations by May 16, 2012;

b. The respondent must deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal its submissions on this issue by May 24, 2012;

c. The parties should be prepared to make oral submissions with respect to this issue on the first day of hearing: and

d. The parties should be prepared to proceed with the merits of the Application on the first day of hearing.