HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Allen Rosario
Applicant
-and-
Thunder Bay Police Services Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Rosario v. Thunder Bay Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Allen Rosario, Applicant
Self-represented
Thunder Bay Police Services Board, Respondent
Holly Walbourne, Counsel
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 services because of disability and creed.
2This Application concerns allegations that the respondent refused to permit the applicant to take his medication while in police custody on March 26, 2012, and April 14, 2012, and that an officer referred to the applicant using a racial slur on July 15, 2012. The hearing of this matter is scheduled on February 26 and 27, 2015, in Thunder Bay, Ontario. This Interim Decision addresses a Request for an Order During Proceedings the respondent filed on January 8, 2015. The applicant filed a Response to a Request for Order, responding to the request on January 8, 2015.
The Request
3The respondent seeks an order directing the applicant to cease and desist his public disclosure of the documents provided to him for the sole purpose of this litigation. The respondent submitted that the applicant has disclosed documents the respondent provided to him in the course of this Application and is also sending e-mail messages to individuals in the community, including city councillors, regarding the litigation of the Application. The respondent submitted that pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) the applicant may not use documents obtained in the course of an Application for any other purpose than the litigation of the Application. The respondent submitted that it has delayed its production of witness statements and documents to be relied upon in the hearing pending an order from the Tribunal requiring the applicant not to disclose or reproduce documents provided to him in the course of these proceedings.
The Response
4The applicant does not appear to deny the allegation that he has disclosed documents provided to him in these proceedings. Rather, the applicant noted that the Application has passed the mediation stage and asked rhetorically why confidentiality is necessary. The applicant submitted that upcoming hearing is public and that the public should be made aware of police misconduct.
Analysis and Decision
5Rule 3.3 of the Rules states as follows:
3.3 Parties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal.
6Pursuant to Rule 3.3, parties are entitled to use documents disclosed under the Rules (e.g., Rules 16 and 17) only for the litigation of the application in question. Any other use, including disclosure to third parties, is prohibited. This rule applies throughout the proceeding and it is irrelevant that the application has passed the mediation stage. The applicant is correct that the hearing of an application is public. The pre-hearing disclosure process is not. In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is in breach of Rule 3.3. I also find that the applicant’s conduct amounts to an abuse of the Tribunal’s processes and the applicant should be aware that any further abuse of process may result in sanctions, which may include dismissal of the Application.
Order
7The Tribunal orders as follows:
The applicant shall comply with Rule 3.3 and shall not disclose any document that the respondent disclosed to him in the course of this proceeding to any third party; and,
The respondent shall immediately comply with its obligation to file and deliver the documents upon which it intends to rely, its list of intended witness and witness statements.
Dated at Toronto, this 12^th^ day of January, 2015.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair