Glanville v. 1212551 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Hortons, 2015 HRTO 102

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Graham Glanville

Applicant

-and-

1212551 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Hortons

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 23, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 102

Indexed as: Glanville v. 1212551 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Hortons

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Graham Glanville, Applicant

Christine Lundy, Counsel

1212551 Ontario Inc. o/a Tim Hortons, Respondent

Frank Angeletti, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The hearing of this case is scheduled to begin on June 2, 2015.

3In his Application the applicant alleges that he was denied goods and services and asked to leave the respondent’s premises because he was travelling on a three wheeled electric scooter.

4The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) seeking an Order directing a third party CFPL-TV (CTV London) to produce certain electronic documents. The applicant also seeks the name and contact information of the customer who is alleged to have taken a video of the incident.

5CTV London was served with the Request but has not responded. The respondent opposes the Request arguing that the material sought is not relevant.

6In his Application and the Request the applicant asserts that another customer of the respondent took a video of all or part of the incident he complains of and then turned over the video to CTV London. As such the applicant argues that to the extent that this video captures the event it is arguably relevant to the issue in dispute. The applicant also argues that CTV London’s coverage of the event including interviews with various people is also relevant.

7Although there may be questions about what part of the electronic documents in the possession of CTV London is relevant and admissible at the hearing I find that at least the video of the incident complained of is at least arguably relevant to the issue in dispute and should be produced. I leave all issues of ultimate admissibility of these materials to the hearing adjudicator assigned to hear this case.

8The Tribunal makes the following Orders:

a. CFPL-TV (CTV London) will deliver to the applicant within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, electronic copies of its news reports of March 11 and March 12, 2014 of an incident which took place at a Tim Hortons restaurant on March 11, 2014 involving the applicant.

b. CFPL-TV (CTV London) will deliver to the applicant within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision any other electronic or other material in its possession in relation to the incident on March 11, 2014 or its coverage of the incident including any video recording of the applicant.

c. If in its possession CFPL-TV (CTV London) will deliver to the applicant within 21 days of this Interim Decision the video taken by a female customer of the incident on March 11, 2014 involving the applicant and, if in its possession, the name and contact information of the female customer who took the video of the incident.

d. Upon receipt of these materials the applicant will forthwith deliver a copy to the respondent.