HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Andrew Sprague
Applicant
-and-
University Health Network
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Sprague v. University Health Network
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Andrew Sprague, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on December 14, 2015 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent has placed discriminatory restrictions on his ability to visit his mother-in-law, a patient in the respondent's facility. It appears these restrictions relate to certain areas of the hospital while the applicant is accompanied by his service animal. On April 18, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars ("request for particulars") as follows:
a. The full name, title and department within the respondent's organization, of the staff member of the respondent who contacted the respondent's security department on Saturday, December 12, 2015 and told the security department that the applicant was refusing to comply with the respondent's policies; and
b. Unedited copies of the security surveillance video recordings that the respondent captured of the incident between its security officers and the applicant, which incident took place on the first floor atrium of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre on Saturday, December 12, 2015.
3The applicant submits that the incidents between staff members and security officers form a basis of the Application. The applicant requests the identity of the staff member to decide whether to call him or her as a witness.
4The applicant also argues that the video recordings of the incident between the security officers and the applicant on December 12, 2015 provide independent evidence of some of the alleged harassment and discrimination.
5The respondent failed to file a response to the request for particulars.
decision and analysis
6At the pre-hearing stage, the Tribunal will order production and disclosure of documents if the requesting party establishes they are arguably relevant, i.e., that they may prove or disprove a fact in issue in the dispute. A finding that evidence is arguably relevant does not imply that the document will actually be found to be relevant or admissible at a hearing. See Lampi v. Princess House Products Canada Inc., 2008 HRTO 1 at para. 9.
7I find that the identity, including title and department, of the staff member who contacted the security department on Saturday, December 12, 2015 arguably relevant as he or she was involved in a key allegation in the Application and the applicant may wish to call the staff member as a witness.
8I find that the security surveillance video recordings specifically of the incident between security officers and the applicant, which allegedly occurred on the first floor atrium of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre on Saturday, December 12, 2015 arguably relevant as it relates to a key allegation in the Application.
Order
9The Tribunal orders the respondent to produce, by no later than June 24, 2016, to the applicant the following:
a. The full name, title and department within the respondent's organization, of the staff member of the respondent who contacted the respondent's security department on Saturday, December 12, 2015 and told the security department that the applicant was refusing to comply with the respondent's policies; and
b. Unedited copies of the security surveillance video recordings that the respondent captured of the incident between its security officers and the applicant, which incident took place on the first floor atrium of the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre on Saturday, December 12, 2015.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of June, 2016.
"Signed By"
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair