Landry v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2016 HRTO 84

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gabriel Landry

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police, Darrell Miller, Rob Shillinglaw and Jeff Dagg

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 20, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 84

Indexed as: Landry v. Ontario Provincial Police

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gabriel Landry, Applicant

Self-represented

Ontario Provincial Police, Darrell Miller, Rob Shillinglaw and Jeff Dagg., Respondents

Indira Sawh, Counsel

Introduction

1The respondents have brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) for production of arguably relevant documents in the applicant’s possession. The applicant opposes this Request.

decision and Analysis

2Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides as follows:

16.1 Not later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Confirmation of Hearing to the parties, each party must deliver to every other party (and file a Statement of Delivery):

a. a list of all arguably relevant documents in their possession. Where a privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and,

b. a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.

3The failure of a party to comply with these obligations can have serious consequences. The Tribunal’s Rules also provide as follows:

5.6 Where a party fails to deliver material to another party or person as required by these Rules, the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material, or may take any other action it considers appropriate.

4The respondents note that during the summary hearing in this matter, the applicant indicated that he intended to demonstrate a link between the alleged treatment and his sex by videotape evidence and arrest records, as well as through testimony of witnesses. However, the applicant did not provide copies of either the videotape(s) or the arrest records in his disclosure of arguably relevant documents under Rule 16.1.

5The applicant states in Response to the Request that he “no longer has access to the raw data” and “could not use the recordings even if they were relevant.”

6It is not clear what the applicant means by the “raw data” and whether this relates to the arrest records. With respect to the recordings, at the summary hearing, the applicant indicated that they were proof that his complaints were not being taken seriously. He does not explain why he now believes he cannot use them or why they are no longer relevant.

7The test for production of documents at this stage is not whether the applicant intends to use them at the hearing, but whether they are “arguably relevant.” The applicant is required to produce all arguably relevant documents in his possession, including the recordings, to the respondents in accordance with Rule 16.1 above.

order

8The applicant is ordered to produce all arguably relevant documents in his possession, including the recordings referenced in the summary hearing, to the respondents by February 4, 2016.

9Moreover, by February 4, 2016, the applicant is ordered to provide the Tribunal and the respondents with a written explanation of (1) what happened to the arrest records; (2) whether they were ever in his possession; and (3) why he believes the recordings are no longer relevant and he cannot use them.

10I am not seized of this case.