Fatou Seck v. Mina Mirzaei, 2014 HRTO 996

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Fatou Seck Applicant

-and-

Mina Mirzaei Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 8, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 996 Indexed as: Seck v. Mirzaei

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Fatou Seck, Applicant Self-represented

Mina Mirzaei, Respondent No one appearing

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 contracts and the occupancy of accommodation because of race, place of origin and ethnic origin. The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her when the respondent evicted the applicant from the room in a shared apartment that she rented from the respondent.

2This Interim Decision addresses a Request for an Order During Proceedings the applicant filed on June 5, 2014. The respondent did not file a response to the request and the time for doing so has passed. The applicant submitted that the respondent included pictures she took of the applicant's belongings in her Response and seeks an order requiring the respondent to disclose all of the pictures that she took. The applicant submitted that the police attended at the apartment on several occasions and the police reports reflected the parties' discussions and the agreements they arrived at in the presence of the police officers. The applicant submitted that she requested production of the police reports, which the police provided. However, the comments attributed to the respondent were redacted on the copies she received. Accordingly, the applicant seeks an order requiring the applicant to disclose to the applicant un-redacted copies of the police reports from September 28, 2012 to November 15, 2012.

Analysis and Decision

3At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will generally order disclosure of arguably relevant documents, unless the documents are privileged or raise privacy concerns, see McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board 2009 HRTO 1220. "Arguable relevance" is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute.

4The respondent included pictures she took of the applicant's belongings to support her position that the applicant was a difficult tenant. In my view, the pictures the respondent took of the applicant's belongings are arguably relevant and should be disclosed.

5The police apparently attended at the respondent's apartment on several occasions because of disputes between the parties. In the Application, the applicant states that the respondent repeated racist comments about the applicant in front of police officers. The applicant requested copies of the police reports regarding these incidents because she believes they will provide evidence the respondent's comments about her. The applicant, however, received copies in which the applicant's comments were redacted. In my view, the police reports are arguably relevant, but there is no indication that the respondent has copies of the un-redacted reports or that the applicant has requested un-redacted reports from the police and been refused. The applicant should first exhaust the available options to obtain the documents herself, since she is the party who wishes to use them in the litigation of this matter. The applicant must request un-redacted copies of the police reports in question. If the police deny this request, the applicant may file another request with the Tribunal seeking an order requiring the police to produce un-redacted copies of the police reports in question.

Order

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent shall provide to the applicant copies of all the pictures she took of the applicant's belongings during her tenancy with the respondent; and,

2. The applicant's request for production of police reports is denied.