Jessica Grande v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1876

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jessica Grande

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent[s]

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: November 8, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 1876
Indexed as: Grande v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin and race.

2The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) seeking the production of a number of documents. The respondent has responded to the Request.

3In her Request the applicant seeks the identity of the street car operator who was involved in the incident giving rise to this Application and her complete personal file including any documents related to any other complaints made against the operator. The applicant argues that the information and documents requested are relevant to the issues in dispute and the identity of the operator will allow the applicant to add the operator as a respondent.

4The respondent objects to the Request and states that the identity of the operator is irrelevant at this stage and that they intend to call the operator as a witness. The respondent argues that the contents of the operator's personal file are not relevant and the request is in the nature of a fishing expedition for character evidence which the Tribunal will not normally order except in narrow circumstances not relevant here.

5I agree with the respondent in large part. The determination of this case will turn largely on the evidence of the applicant and more particularly the operator who has offered an explanation for the behaviour that may have been experienced by the applicant. Evidence of other complaints about this operator, assuming there are any, can only lengthen and delay the resolution of this dispute to little purpose. If in the evidence the applicant is able to establish some basis for this request to have access to records of other complaints made about the operator it may be renewed at the appropriate time.

6As for the identity of the operator it is not relevant at this stage. The applicant argues that it is necessary to the possible addition of the operator as a respondent. There is currently no request to add a respondent and given the delay in doing so it is not certain that the Tribunal would entertain such a request at this late stage in the proceeding.

7For these reasons the Request of the applicant is denied.

8I am not seized of this case.