Rodriguez v. Hamilton Cab Company, 2014 HRTO 1093

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rolando Rodriguez Applicant

-and-

Hamilton Cab Company Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: July 25, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1093 Indexed as: Rodriguez v. Hamilton Cab Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rolando Rodriguez, Applicant Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant was a driver for the respondent. He self-identifies as being of Filipino origin and he says that the respondent discriminated against him because of where he comes from. He alleges that the respondent treated drivers of Indian and Middle Eastern origin more favourably than him. The applicant cites a number of incidents where he compares his treatment to that of other drivers in similar or related situations to support his claim that he was consistently subjected to adverse treatment.

3The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings that was provided to the respondent and the Tribunal. As part of the request the applicant wanted the Tribunal to order the respondent to produce certain documents, but those documents are not in the possession of the respondent. In Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 843 I denied the applicant’s request.

4The applicant requests a reconsideration of that Interim Decision. The reconsideration request focuses on my decision not to order the respondent to produce documents that – if they exist – are not in the possession of the respondent but rather in the possession of the Hamilton Police Service and the City of Hamilton’s taxi licencing authority.

5It appears that he has also made a request pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for proceedings to be expedited. A closer reading of this request does not indicate that he wants a particular proceeding to be expedited, but rather that he wants the Tribunal to decide on his reconsideration request quickly.

6Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure reads as follows:

Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the decision. (emphasis added)

7The decision I made in relation to the applicant’s request for production of documents was not a final decision. The reason it was not a final decision is because I did not decide that he can never obtain access to those documents. Rather, what I decided was that he cannot obtain access to them from the respondent because the respondent does not have them.

8I think the applicant, who is not represented by counsel, may not fully understand how to go about getting the documents he seeks. If the documents are in the possession of the Hamilton Police Service and the City of Hamilton’s taxi licencing authority then, as a first step, he may wish to contact those bodies and simply ask them for the documents.

9If the Hamilton Police Service or the City of Hamilton’s taxi licencing authority refuse to give him the documents, then it is open to him to make a request to the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. However, in doing so he must provide notice of the request to the Hamilton Police Service and/or the City of Hamilton’s taxi licencing authority, as well as to the respondent, because Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

19.1 A party may request that the Tribunal make an order at any time during a proceeding by oral submission in the course of the hearing or by written request.

19.2 Where a request is made in writing, it must be made in Form 10, Request for Order during Proceedings (“Request for Order”) and must be delivered to all parties and any person or organization who may have an interest in the request and filed with the Tribunal. (emphasis added)

10If the Tribunal receives a request that is made in accordance with Rule 19, it will then decide whether or not to order production of the documents. In order for the Tribunal to make a fair decision the respondent, the Hamilton Police Service and the City of Hamilton’s taxi licencing authority all need to be given an opportunity to provide their views to the Tribunal on whether the documents should be produced or not. This is because the respondent, the Hamilton Police Service and the City of Hamilton’s taxi licencing authority may each have an interest in the request.

11The above reasons explain why my decision on the issue of document production was not a final decision. In other words, the applicant may yet obtain production of these documents, but he has to follow the proper procedure before the Tribunal can decide whether or not it will order production.

12Because my decision was not a final decision, the applicant’s request for reconsideration will not be granted.

order

13The request for reconsideration is denied.