HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Donald Williams Applicant
-and-
Toronto Transit Commission Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: December 23, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1726 Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Donald Williams, Applicant Self-represented
Toronto Transit Commission, Respondent Lucy Siraco, Counsel
Introduction
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed on November 26, 2015.
2In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated and reprised against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, he alleged that the respondent denied him overtime opportunities sometime between January 2, 2010 to June 28, 2010. The applicant also alleged that on June 19, 2010, the respondent detailed him to do work he “does not do”. The applicant alleged that the respondent took these actions against him as a reprisal under the Code and/or due to his association with an individual who is allegedly identified by one of the grounds protected under the Code.
3In his RFOP, the applicant requested that the Tribunal provide a digital recording of the hearing scheduled to take place in February, 2016. In his RFOP, he also commented upon certain redactions that the respondent made to materials that were disclosed to him in accordance with my last Interim Decision in this matter.
Applicant’s request for recording
4The applicant relied upon comments made by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 to request that the Tribunal provide a recording of the hearing in this case.
5The Tribunal’s present approach to the recording of hearings is set out in its “Practice Direction on Recording Hearings”. As stated in that practice direction:
The HRTO does not normally record or transcribe its proceedings, but may record a proceeding at its own discretion.
It has been recognized that transcription and recording of hearings may make proceedings more formal and expensive in administrative tribunals. Recordings may lengthen proceedings if parties ask to replay evidence. Adjudicators often travel and hold hearings in various locations without staff to assist them, so equipment problems may arise and it is impossible to guarantee a quality recording. Therefore, many tribunals including the HRTO do not record or transcribe their proceedings.
6The applicant has provided no reason that would lead me to deviate from the Tribunal’s usual practice in this matter. Therefore, his request that the Tribunal record the February 2016 hearing is denied.
applicant’s comments re: redactions
7In his RFOP, the applicant made a number of comments regarding certain information that the respondent redacted from materials it produced to the applicant in accordance with my last Interim Decision.
8In Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1507, I denied many of the materials sought by the applicant as irrelevant to this proceeding. However, I ordered the respondent to produce to the applicant certain materials it had agreed to produce to him on a “without prejudice” basis. The materials in question were the Birchmount Division daily slips for Saturdays and Sundays between January 2, 2010 and June 27, 2010. I noted that the respondent was permitted to redact from these slips only private/confidential information relating to other operators.
9The respondent produced to the applicant the daily slips referred to in the Interim Decision. However, the respondent redacted from the slips the names and badge numbers of the operators listed on the slips. Although the applicant has not actually requested an unredacted copy of the slips, he complains that the respondent is seeking to mislead the Tribunal. He claims that the respondent should be willing to show that no one junior or senior to the applicant was assigned to overtime during the second week of January 2010. The applicant goes on to note that he filed a complaint against his union over the overtime issue and that this complaint was dismissed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”). According to the applicant, he has sought judicial review of the OLRB decision and this judicial review will be heard in February 2016.
10It appears to me that the applicant and respondent have been involved in a longstanding set of disputes in various forums. I am concerned to ensure that I only order production of documentation and information that is arguably relevant to this proceeding and this proceeding only. It is also important that any documentation obtained through this proceeding is not used for any purpose other than this proceeding.
11At the present time, I do not consider the names and badge numbers of the operators assigned overtime during the time period in question to be relevant to this proceeding. The applicant claims he was denied overtime sometime between January 2, 2010 and June 27, 2010. However, he still has not provided the Tribunal or the respondent any particulars regarding the dates on which he volunteered for overtime by submitting a volunteer overtime form. These particulars will be key to the applicant’s ability to make out his claim in this proceeding. Unless or until the applicant provides such particulars, I cannot assess the relevance of the names and badge numbers of operators on any particular daily slip if indeed an unredacted copy of any slips were to be requested by the applicant.
NO RIGHT OF REPLY TO RFOPs
12The applicant requested an extension of time to reply to the respondent’s Response to his RFOP. The applicant should take note that the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure do not provide for a right of reply to Responses filed in relation to RFOPs.
orders
13For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request that the Tribunal record the February 2016 hearing is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of December, 2015.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Jo-Anne Pickel Vice-chair