Rolando Rodriguez v. Hamilton Cab Company, 2014 HRTO 843

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rolando Rodriguez Applicant

-and-

Hamilton Cab Company Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: June 9, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 843 Indexed as: Rodriguez v. Hamilton Cab Company

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rolando Rodriguez, Applicant Self-represented

Hamilton Cab Company, Respondent Jennifer Zdriluk, Counsel

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 Application is scheduled for hearing on October 14 and 15, 2014. This Interim Decision deals with a request by the applicant for an extension of time, for the production of arguably relevant documents by the respondent and for what he describes as an “ocular inspection of the respondent’s dispatch system during the hearing”.

4In relation to the request for an extension of time, the applicant does not explain what he needs more time to do. It is impossible to grant this request without knowing what it refers to. For this reason it is denied.

5The Confirmation of Hearing dated April 17, 2014 sets out the timelines the parties need to follow. I suggest to the applicant that he review this document and if he feels that he will not be able to meet any deadline set out in the Confirmation of Hearing, then he can make another request that explains what the problem is and what he wants the Tribunal to do about it.

6In relation to the request for an ocular inspection of the dispatch system, I assume that what he wants is for the Tribunal adjudicator who is going to hear this Application to go and look at the respondent’s dispatch system during the hearing. At this time this request is denied because this request is more appropriately dealt with at the hearing itself.

7If the applicant is going to make this request at the hearing, then he should be prepared to explain why it is necessary for the adjudicator to go and look at the dispatch system and why the applicant’s objective cannot be achieved through other means (such as providing the Tribunal with photographs, videos and/or oral testimony from people who know how the system works). It might be helpful for the applicant to discuss this with counsel for the respondent to see if they can agree on an approach before the hearing starts.

8In relation to the production of documents the applicant requests the following:

1. Hamilton City Police most updated investigation report on the Hamilton Cab and train accident on Quigley Road, Hamilton ON on May 11, 2013 driven by an East Indie driver.
2. Hamilton City Taxi inspection report on Cab no. 300 owned by Mr. Jagtar Chahal which figured in an accident on November1, 2013 on the Northbound King Street entrance ramp of RedHill Valley Express way.
3. Hamilton City Taxi investigation report on the fraudulent transfer of Vehicle Identification to keep an older decommissioned vehicle in taxi service committed by Jaspal Gill , driver and cabs owner, who is also a Middle Eastern or East Indie.
4. Hamilton Cab record of fisitcuff and serious altercation of Cab driver 97 who was wearing a turban with Cab driver 420 of competitor Blue Line Taxi sometime in the month of February 2013 over a taxi stand infront of the Sheraton Hotel The incident was reported by a private citizen to Hamilton Cab office while on board a taxi cab I was driving.
5. Statistics of all Hamilton Cab drivers indicating their nationalities,race,ethnicity and country of origin.
6. Hamilton Cab copies of interac(debit and credit machine transactions) indicating tips given by the applicant's customers in appreciation of performance/services.

9The respondent indicates that in relation to items 1,2,3,4 and 6 it does not have such records in its possession. The respondent’s explanation for this appears to be that it is not an employer of cab drivers. It states that it provides a dispatch service to drivers, who are independent owners or operators of taxi cabs. I infer from this that the respondent is saying that if such documents exist, they are either in the possession of the individual drivers and/or the Hamilton police service (in the case of item 1), and the municipal taxi licencing authority (in the case of items 2 and 3). I also infer from the respondent’s position in relation to item 4 that if one of its drivers is involved in a fight with a driver from another company, then it maintains no record of such an incident.

10The Tribunal cannot order a party to produce records that it does not own or control. In the absence of any reason to question the respondent’s position on the request for items 1,2,3,4 and 6, the applicant’s request is denied.

11Regarding item 5, the respondent states that it has already provided the information it has in relation to this request to the applicant.

order

12The request to extend time is denied at this time.

13The request for an inspection of the respondent’s dispatch system is denied at this time.

14The request for production of documents is denied.