HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mafario Amicucci
Applicant
-and-
York Police Services Board, Chris Parsons, Mario Gentili and Guy Guindon
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Amicucci v. York Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mafario Amicucci, Applicant
Self-represented
York Police Services Board, Chris Parsons, Mario Gentili and Guy Guindon, Respondents
Raj Anand and Farah Malik, Counsel
Introduction
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 services. The Tribunal is in the process of hearing this Application.
2During the course of the first day of hearing, the Tribunal was advised that there exists a recording, in either a video or audio format, with respect to the applicant’s arrest on January 26, 2010 (the “recording”).
3The respondents advised that they do not have a copy of this recording in their possession.
4The applicant has advised that his counsel retained with respect to criminal matters has a copy of this recording in his possession.
5All the parties agreed that this recording is arguably relevant to the proceedings.
6The respondents have consented to the release of the recording by the applicant’s counsel.
7The Crown was given notice of the outstanding production issues and counsel for the Attorney General wrote to the Tribunal on March 1, 2013 to advise the following:
As the investigating police are a party to the proceedings, there is no need to resort to a release from the undertaking given when Mr. Amicucci was provided his Crown disclosure, since all relevant police-generated records in the Crown disclosure will be produced by the police as part of the normal production and discovery process between the parties pursuant to the rules of the HRTO.
Furthermore, pursuant to the Court of Appeal decision in P.(D.) v. Wagg (2004), 2002 CanLII 23611 (ON SCDC), 61 O.R. (3d) 746, aff’d in part 2004 CanLII 39048 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 229 (C.A.), at paragraph 84, where the police are defending themselves, it is not necessary for the Crown to consent to the use of police-generated materials. Therefore, the Crown would not take any further position on the use of documents produced by the police.
Order
8In these circumstances, given that the respondents consent to the release of the recording, which is a police generated record and in light of the Crown’s comments, I find that it is appropriate to Order the following:
a. The applicant shall obtain a copy of the recording and give a copy of this recording to the respondents no later than by the commencement of the hearing scheduled on April 12, 2013; and
b. If the applicant’s counsel objects to producing the record to the Tribunal then he is directed to file written submissions explaining his opposition by 9:00 a.m., April 12, 2013.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of April, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair