Chandra v. Garda Canada Security Corporation, 2016 HRTO 1561

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Yashas Umesh Chandra Applicant

-and-

Garda Canada Security Corporation Respondent

-and-

The United Steelworkers Union Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: December 5, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1561 Indexed as: Chandra v. Garda Canada Security Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yashas Umesh Chandra, Applicant Self-represented

Garda Canada Security Corporation, Respondent Mathieu Duceppe, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant's Request for an Order During Proceedings, filed on November 4, 2016, for the production of documents ("RFOP").

2The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP on November 18, 2016.

3The Application is scheduled for hearing on February 1, 2017.

Background

4The respondent provides security services for various clients, including Gerrard Square Property Management ("Gerrard Square"). The applicant was employed with the respondent between October 9 and November 19, 2014, and worked as a security guard at Gerrard Square.

5The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of his race, ancestry, place or origin, ethnic origin and creed. He maintains that the respondent's employees, namely property manager Chirag Murabia, account manager Daud Wafaq, and security guards Johnny Lam, Jamie Rekker and Morris Alo, discriminated against him by making inappropriate comments and treating him adversely based on the Code grounds enumerated above.

6The applicant alleges that the respondent warned him that it had received two complaints from tenants at Gerrard Square about him approaching women while on duty. The applicant contends that the complaints were fabricated.

7The applicant maintains that on November 11, 2014, the respondent informed him that he was suspended and transferred to another site because it had received two written complaints about him from two separate tenants of Gerrard Square. The applicant contends that the complaints were fabricated. Nevertheless, he submits that he collected his belongings from the office and left the site but was not given his memo book as it was deemed company property.

8The applicant maintains that he was called into a meeting on November 19, 2014, with representatives from the respondent's management and human resources, and the union. The applicant alleges the respondent informed him that it had received two written complaints about him from two separate tenants at Gerrard Square and the respondent had decided to terminate him. The applicant contends that he was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations and he felt he had two choices; to be terminated or to resign. He chose to resign.

9The respondent denies that it discriminated against the applicant in violation of the Code. The respondent maintains that between October 21, 2014, and November 4, 2014, it received two verbal complaints from two different tenants of Gerrard Square advising it that the applicant was bothering female staff members. Representatives of the respondent met with the applicant to discuss the complaints and gave him a formal disciplinary notice. Following that meeting, the respondent submits that it received another complaint call and had to have another conversation with the applicant.

10The respondent maintains that on or about November 11, 2014, it received another complaint from a third tenant of Gerrard Square about the applicant. The respondent informed the applicant that he was suspended and upon being told to leave, the applicant became agitated but eventually left the premises on his own.

11The respondent maintains that on November 19, 2014, its representatives met with the applicant and at the end of the meeting the applicant gave a written resignation to the respondent.

Request for Production

12The applicant requests a series of documents from the respondent and each request is addressed below. The applicant only provides the following reason for the requests:

The disclosure of the requested documents will prove to the Tribunal, beyond any doubt, that the incidents mentioned in my Human Rights Application occurred due to discrimination based on Islamic prejudice, Chinese xenophobia and racism. The above mentioned documents are very crucial to the outcome of this Human Rights Application.

13At 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 documents in question may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute.

Production of Memo Book

14The applicant requests the production of his personal memo book.

15The respondent maintains that it is looking for the memo book.

16The respondent does not oppose the request for production of the memo book and for that reason, I order that the respondent file with the Tribunal and deliver to the parties, by December 19, 2016, the applicant's memo book or a written explanation outlining the reason for failing to produce the memo book.

Written Complaints against Respondent's Employees

17The applicant requests, as described in the RFOP, any and all written complaints made from October 2014 to October 2016 against the respondent's employees Chirag Murabia, Johnny Lam, Jamie Rekker, Morris Alo and Daud Wafaq.

18The respondent submits that the Application addresses alleged discrimination between October 9 and November 19, 2014, and any complaints filed after November 19, 2014 are irrelevant. The respondent confirms that there were no written complaints received about the employees mentioned above during the relevant period.

19I am satisfied that the respondent has complied with this request and that no further determination is required.

Written Complaints against Specific Tenants of Gerrard Square

20The applicant requests, as described in the RFOP, any and all written complaints from October 2014 to October 2016 against three separate tenants of Gerrard Square.

21The respondent submits that the period of alleged discrimination is from October 9 to November 19, 2014, and any complaint filed after November 19, 2014 is irrelevant. The respondent submits that even for the period of October 9 to November 19, 2014, written complaints, if any, against tenants of Gerrard Square are irrelevant to the Application.

22The applicant has failed to establish that the information requested is arguably relevant to the Application. I find that the applicant has not established a link between possible complaints against tenants of Gerrard Square and the allegations that the respondent has discriminated against him. In the circumstances, the request is denied.

Written Agreement that Mathieu Duceppe is Counsel for Gerrard Square

23The applicant requests the written agreement stating that Mathieu Duceppe is the legal counsel for the property management of Gerrard Square.

24The respondent argues that this information is not arguably relevant and therefore the respondent does not agree to comply with this request.

25The applicant has failed to establish that the identity of counsel for Gerrard Square, an entity that is not named as a party to the Application, is relevant to allegations that the respondent has discriminated against the applicant. I find that the applicant failed to establish that the requested information is arguably relevant to the Application and the request is denied.

Unredacted Complaints

26The applicant requests a scanned and hard copy of the unredacted version of the documents titled "written complaint 1", "written complaint 2" and "written complaint 3" referred to in the respondent's document disclosure pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure, filed on October 5, 2016.

27The respondent opposes this request. It argues that those documents are written complaints filed by various employees working at Gerrard Square dated October 14, 2014, November 11, 2014, and November 14, 2014, respectively. The respondent submits that the content of the three written complaints was provided to the applicant and the only redacted information is the names of the employees who filed the complaints.

28I find that the applicant has failed to provide an explanation as to why the names of the employees who filed the complaints are arguably relevant and the request is denied.

Documents Related to the Investigation

29The applicant requests all documents related to the investigation conducted by the property management with respect to the complaints received by Gerrard Square.

30The respondent argues that it cannot provide the documents since the request is too broad and is not related to any specific event or individual or period of time.

31The request for documents related to the "investigation" in the RFOP is made immediately following the request for the unredacted complaints dated October 14, 2014, November 11, 2014, and November 14, 2014. I am of the view that the applicant is referring to documents related to investigations, if any, of those complaints.

32Although the applicant failed to explain why those documents are arguably relevant, I find that, if there are such documents, they are arguably relevant. The applicant alleges discrimination in part as a result of the complaints and his impression that they were fabricated. The respondent submits that it relied on the complaints to discipline the applicant. The alleged complaints play a key role in the events outlined in the Application and documents related to their investigations, if any, are arguably relevant.

33I order that the respondent file with the Tribunal and deliver to the parties, by December 19, 2016, any documents related to investigations of the October 14, 2014, November 11, 2014, and November 14, 2014 complaints or a written explanation outlining the reason for failing to produce the documents.

Order

34For all these reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondent shall, by December 19, 2016, file with the Tribunal and deliver to the parties the applicant's personal memo book, or a written explanation outlining the reason for failing to produce the memo book;

b. The applicant's request for written complaints made between October 2014 and October 2016 against three separate tenants of Gerrard Square is denied;

c. The applicant's request for the written agreement stating that Mathieu Duceppe is the legal counsel for the property management of Gerrard Square is denied;

d. The applicant's request for a scanned and hard copy of the unredacted version of the October 14, 2014, November 11, 2014, and November 14, 2014 complaints is denied;

e. The respondent shall, by December 19, 2016, file with the Tribunal and deliver to the parties any documents related to investigations of the October 14, 2014, November 11, 2014, and November 14, 2014 complaints or a written explanation outlining the reason for failing to produce the documents.

35I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of December, 2016.

"Signed by"

Josée Bouchard Vice-chair