HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mario Garisto
Applicant
-and-
Hudson’s Bay Company
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Garisto v. Hudson’s Bay Company
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Mario Garisto, Applicant
Self-represented
Hudson’s Bay Company, Respondent
Alix Herber, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Tribunal dismiss this Application, as well as the applicant’s production request.
2The applicant filed an Application in which he alleged discrimination with respect to services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The Tribunal scheduled a mediation in this case which the applicant failed to attend. Following the mediation date, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant asking him whether he intended to proceed with the Application. The applicant replied that he did not attend the mediation because the Tribunal did not address a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) he had filed seeking production of certain video footage prior to the mediation. The applicant indicated that he requested production of the video footage as an “accommodation” to refresh his memory of the events described in the Application.
Respondent’s request to dismiss
3The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application due to the applicant’s failure to attend the mediation.
4I agree with the respondent that the fact that the Tribunal did not address the applicant’s production request prior to the mediation was not a valid reason not to attend the mediation. However, the applicant’s failure to attend the mediation is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to dismiss his Application. Therefore, the respondent’s request to dismiss is denied.
applicant’s production request
5In his RFOP, the applicant requested production of video footage he claimed the respondent had referred to in its Response. The respondent submitted that the applicant’s production request was premature. It also noted that there was no reference to video footage in the Response. In a subsequent letter, the respondent’s counsel confirmed that no video footage exists which falls is responsive to the request made by the applicant.
6Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out a process for the disclosure of documents prior to a hearing. The Tribunal will only require parties to engage in early production of documents in exceptional circumstances. There is nothing exceptional in these circumstances which justify early production of documents. Although the applicant claimed he required the video footage as an accommodation, he submitted no medical documents or particulars that would support his assertion that he had a disability-related need for the video footage in order to effectively participate in the mediation.
7I find that the applicant’s production request is at the very least premature. It also appears to be moot as the respondent has confirmed that it has no video footage that would be responsive to the applicant’s RFOP.
ORDERs and direction
8The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The respondent’s request to dismiss the Application is denied.
b. The applicant’s production request is denied.
c. The Registrar shall schedule this Application for a two-day hearing.
9I am not seized of this Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of July, 2016.
“signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair