Haye v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 1615

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Everton Haye

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 15, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1615

Indexed as: Haye v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Everton Haye, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent

David Gourlay, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses a production request filed by the applicant after the first hearing day in this case.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against him contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended. The Tribunal held an initial hearing day on October 17, 2016 and a second hearing day is currently being scheduled. At the first hearing day, I heard testimony from the applicant as well as one of the respondent’s witnesses in relation to the events taking place on April 21, 2014 which form the basis of the Application. At the second hearing day, I will hear testimony from a second respondent witness strictly in relation to two 911 calls placed by the applicant in May 26, 2016, which I found to be potentially relevant to the Application.

3On December 5, 2016, the applicant filed a request for the production of footage from police cameras at the corner of Yonge and College from April 21, 2014 and May 26, 2016.

4The respondent opposed the applicant’s request for the 2014 footage on the basis that it is untimely. The respondent noted that the hearing is almost complete, the applicant has closed his case and the respondent has adduced its evidence in regards to the events of April 21, 2014.

5The respondent also advised that no footage exists in respect of the 2014 or 2016 events since such footage, if any, would only be retained for 72 hours. In the absence of a request made within 72 hours to retain the footage for this proceeding, the footage no longer exists.

finding

6In light of the respondent’s assertion that no such footage currently exists, the applicant’s request for it is denied. In addition, the request for the 2014 footage is untimely, as the evidence in relation to this incident is complete. The only testimony that remains to be heard is in relation to the applicant’s two 911 calls made in May, 2016.

ORDER

7For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s production request is denied.