HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Richard Mitchell Applicant
-and-
Rexdale Community Hub Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: November 23, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1493 Indexed as: Mitchell v. Rexdale Community Hub
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Richard Mitchell, Applicant Self-represented
Rexdale Community Hub, Respondent Maria Constantine, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities, and membership in a vocational association because of race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). While they were not marked off as specific grounds, the applicant also made allegations on Forms 1 and 1C (Goods, Services and Facilities) and Forms 1 and 1E (Membership in a Vocational Association) under the grounds of creed, sex (gender), association, and reprisal. The applicant alleges that the Friends for Life Outreach Ministry, of which he is the president, applied to use space at the respondent for a free training program, open to all, but geared towards black, male youths. He asserts that the respondent denied this request because it was for a religiously based training program. He seeks $50,000 as a monetary remedy and unspecified future compliance remedies.
2The respondent filed a Response denying the allegations against it.
3The Application is scheduled for hearing on January 11 and 12, 2017.
4The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“respondent’s RFOP”) requesting that the applicant provide a number of particulars, specifically referencing paragraphs of the Application and Tribunal forms, as well as some documentation in support of the particulars. It also requests the opportunity to file an amended Response following receipt of the particulars.
5The Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1183 on September 8, 2016 ordering that:
a. The applicant deliver to the respondent by September 30, 2016, the information requested in the respondent’s RFOP at paragraphs 1 to 6 and file it with the Tribunal;
b. The applicant deliver to the respondent by September 30, 2016, any documentation requested in the respondent’s RFOP and file it with the Tribunal;
c. The respondent deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal any amended Response, with the amendments underlined, within 30 days of receiving the applicant’s materials in paras. a and b above; and
d. The applicant deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a Reply, responsive only to the amendments in the amended Response, within 10 days of receiving the respondent’s amended Response.
6On October 31, 2016, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal maintaining that, even though the applicant purported to comply with the Interim Decision, he failed to produce any of the information and documents outlined in the respondent’s RFOP with the exception of partial information in relation to the Friends for Life Outreach Ministry and the nature of the applicant’s creed.
7On November 4, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“applicant’s RFOP”) requesting particulars described below and to amend his Application. The applicant did not specify how he wishes to amend his Application and as a result, I make no determination on that matter.
8The respondent responded to the applicant’s RFOP.
9This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s submissions that the applicant failed to comply with Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1183 and the applicant’s RFOP for the production of particulars.
Compliance with Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1183
10Having considered the applicant’s submissions in response to Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1183, I find that they are insufficient and not in compliance with the Interim Decision.
11The respondent has indicated that it is willing to accept that the applicant has complied with the Interim Decision if the applicant satisfies the following:
a. Provide information regarding how the Outreach Evangelism workshops that the applicant intended to hold at the respondent’s space serve as a source of fundraising to his organization;
b. Provide an itemized outline of the $50,000 in damages the applicant claims to have incurred, as well as information and relevant supporting documents regarding any attempt the applicant has made to mitigate his damages.
12The applicant is ordered to immediately file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent the above-mentioned particulars.
Applicant’s RFOP
13In his RFOP, the applicant requests a series of particulars from the respondent. I am satisfied that the respondent has complied with the following list and I make no further determination related to those requests:
a. The applicant requests a copy of the respondent’s original registration. The respondent clarified that the applicant is referring to the respondent’s Notification of Registration issued by the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency. The respondent complied with this request by filing and delivering a copy of the form with the respondent’s Response to the applicant’s RFOP.
b. The applicant requests that the respondent provide information about the nature of the respondent’s view towards religion/political groups including the fundamental objective of the respondent. The respondent complied with this request by adequately responding to it in its Response to the applicant’s RFOP.
c. The applicant requests the respondent’s rules for rejecting the use of space. The respondent complied with this request by producing a copy of its Community Space Usage policies with its Response.
d. The applicant requests the names of the most recent up-to-date respondent’s board of directors. The respondent complied with this request by producing the names in its Response to the applicant’s RFOP.
e. The applicant requests the job description of staff member Vicki Crystall who rejected the applicant’s application, and her qualification. The respondent complied with this request by responding in its Response to the applicant’s RFOP.
f. The applicant requests detailed documented information on how the respondent treated the applicant equally as other applicants for the use of the space. The respondent complied with this request by confirming in its Response to the applicant’s RFOP that all applications carrying out religious or political activities are rejected in the same manner as the applicant’s application for space.
g. The applicant requests a detailed list of all occupants of the respondent’s space and what services they provide. The respondent complied with this request in its Response to the applicant’s RFOP.
h. The applicant requests a detailed list of all groups that have been rejected for the use of space and the reason. The respondent complied with this request in the Response to the applicant’s RFOP.
14The respondent refused to comply with the following requests. I address each of them separately.
Last two months of bank statements and June 2015 bank statement
15The applicant requests the production of the last two months of the respondent’s bank statements and the bank statement for June 2015. He submits that he requires copies of all financial contributions made to the respondent, from any governmental bodies as well as from the United Way in 2015 and the first six months of 2016.
16The respondent argues that bank statements are irrelevant to the Application and it is not prepared to produce these documents.
17At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will generally order disclosure of arguably relevant documents, unless the documents are privileged or raise privacy concerns; see McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220. “Arguable relevance” is not a particularly high threshold, but the party seeking production must establish that the document(s) in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute.
18On the face of his request, the bank statements the applicant seeks have absolutely no connection to the claims set out in his Application and the applicant has not explained how they are arguably relevant. Accordingly, the applicant’s production request is denied.
The list of the respondent’s founding members
19The applicant requests the production of the list of the respondent’s founding members. The applicant makes no submissions as to how this information is arguably relevant.
20The respondent argues that this information is irrelevant to the Application and is not prepared to produce these documents.
21On the face of his request, the information the applicant seeks has absolutely no connection to the claims set out in his Application and the applicant has not explained how they are arguably relevant. Accordingly, the applicant’s production request is denied.
Order
22For all these reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant shall immediately file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondent the particulars described at para. 11 a) and b) above;
b. The applicant’s request for production of the last two months and the month of June 2015 of the respondent’s bank statements is denied;
c. The applicant’s request for the production of the list of the respondent’s founding members is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair