HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Donna Graham
Applicant
-and-
Underground Miata Network Associations Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: April 10, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 592
Indexed as: Graham v. Underground Miata Network Associations Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Donna Graham, Applicant
Self-represented
Underground Miata Network Associations Inc., Respondent
Roland Beaulne, Representative
Introduction
1This Interim Decision deals with two Requests by the applicant for production of documents in preparation for a hearing that is scheduled to begin on August 20, 2013.
2The applicant has filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of services because of disability. She also alleges reprisal.
3The respondent is a recreational car club. It has adopted a policy that allows the members who lead the club’s recreational tours to determine whether all participants on a given tour must have their car equipped with a Citizens’ Band (CB) radio in order to take part in the tour. Prior to the adoption of the policy the use of a CB radio was always encouraged but never mandatory.
4The applicant has a hearing disability. She maintains that she cannot use a CB radio and that the respondent has refused to accommodate her disability. The applicant alleges that she has repeatedly tried to get the respondent to change its policy through discussion within the club, but has had no success. She alleges that as a result of her efforts to pursue this issue and as a reprisal measure, the respondent has barred her from participating in its online chat forum unless she refrains from raising her concerns about the policy.
5The Tribunal’s Notice of Confirmation of Hearing directed the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents by March 5, 2013. The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on March 8, requesting copies of the respondent’s policies with regard to disabilities, including its procedures for dealing with complaints; copies of any of the respondent’s minutes and emails arising from meetings in which the creation of the policy and its implementation date were discussed; and copies of any of the respondent’s minutes and emails arising from meetings in which the applicant’s request for accommodation was discussed. In this Request the applicant adds that she has not yet received any of the respondent’s arguably relevant documents.
6A second Request was filed by the applicant on April 5. In this Request she asks that the respondent be directed to produce any emails from the respondent’s executive online forum, as well as from the forum which is open to the general membership, that deal with a request by a fellow member (who also has a hearing disability) to have the policy modified in its application to that member.
7The respondent has no objections to producing the documents requested by the applicant, but asks that it be allowed until May 31 to do so. The respondent’s representative indicates that he was away in Florida from January through to the end of March and only became aware of the timelines set out in the Tribunal’s Notice of Confirmation of Hearing upon his return to Canada in April. He argues that the respondent needs time to review its older files and to permit the club’s executive to discuss the issues raised by the applicant.
8The documents requested by the applicant meet the test of arguable relevance set out by the Tribunal in McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220 at paragraphs 12-13, and the respondent takes no issue with their relevance.
9In relation to the extension of time requested by the respondent to produce these documents, I note that most, if not all, of the documents requested by the applicant are not particularly old. The policy change was in March of 2011, and the conflict between the parties post-dates that change. If the respondent’s representative has to review its files to retrieve these documents, this does not appear to me to be an onerous task. For this reason I have difficulty accepting that the respondent needs a full two months from the time of its representative’s return to Canada to be able to produce these documents.
10I appreciate that the respondent’s representative and other members of the executive volunteer their time with the club, but the respondent has been aware of this Application since April of 2012 and has already missed the deadline set out in the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing. In light of these facts, I am of the view that the respondent should produce its arguably relevant documents as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision.
order
11The respondent is to produce its arguably relevant documents, including the documents outlined in both of the applicant’s Requests, as soon as possible, and not later than 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of April, 2013.
”signed by”
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair