Wayne Ferron v. 1580684 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1310

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wayne Ferron

Applicant

-and-

1580684 Ontario Inc. cob Tim Horton’s Restaurant # 2491

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1310

Indexed as: Ferron v. 1580684 Ontario Inc.

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 goods and services because of ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, race and reprisal.

2The respondent has filed a Response (“Form2”). Amongst other submissions, the respondent advises that its staff have no particular recollection of the evening in question or the incidents described in the Application.

3On September 18, 2015, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“Request”). In its Request the respondent seeks the production of certain records in the possession of the Toronto Police Service as follows:

all documents, including but not limited to all notes, memo notes, and incident reports, video recordings, audio recordings, and any other pertinent documents, electronic or otherwise, in relation to their intervention and the facts relied upon in this Application, whether with respect to Incident #551-151 or any other incident occurring on or about April 3, 2015 at the Tim Horton's Restaurant located at 750 Dundas Street West.

4The Toronto Police Service has been given notice of the Request and takes no position on it. The Toronto Police Service advises that “police identifier codes, officer’s notebook notes pertaining to unrelated matters, as well as detailed personal information and identifiers belonging to non-parties will be redacted from the police records”. The Toronto Police Services also states that the records produced shall only be used by the parties directly involved in this Application.

5The applicant agrees that the requested documents should be produced.

6The Request is granted. At this stage there is no reason to dispute the respondent’s assertion that its staff do not recall the incident described in the Application. I also accept the respondent’s submissions that if as the applicant alleges, the police were called and asked him to leave, the police records that do exist may cast some light on the events in question.

7Accordingly the Order is granted. As regards the redaction proposed by the Toronto Police Service, the respondent has taken no position on the issue at this stage and in my view the proposed redaction is reasonable at this stage.

8The Tribunal makes the following Order:

Within 21 days of this Interim Decision the Toronto Police Service shall deliver to the parties all the above noted documents, including but not limited to all notes, memo notes, and incident reports, video recordings, audio recordings, and any other pertinent documents, electronic or otherwise, in relation to their intervention in relation to the events described in this Application, whether with respect to Incident #551-151 or any other incident occurring on or about April 3, 2015 at the Tim Horton's Restaurant located at 750 Dundas Street West. These documents may be redacted in accordance with the Toronto Police Service’s advice, in its letter dated September 21, 2015.

9I am not seized.