HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Spiwe Mangoma
Applicant
-and-
Oros Investments Inc. and Joan Coburn
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Mangoma v. Oros Investments Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Spiwe Mangoma, Applicant
Self-represented
Oros Investments Inc. and Joan Coburn, Respondents
Angela Lynn Browne, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the production request made by the applicant on July 5, 2016.
2The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, she alleged that the respondents did not accept her application to rent an apartment because of her race and/or colour. The respondents denied any discrimination.
3On May 24, 2016, the applicant requested production of certain documents. It appears that the respondent provided the applicant with some, but not all, of the requested documents. On July 5, 2016, the applicant filed a second Request for Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”) In that RFOP, she requested the production of the rental application made by the tenant who was successful in renting the apartment for which she had applied. She indicated in the RFOP that the respondents had not provided this document in response to her first production request. It is unclear whether the respondents produced to the applicant the other documents she requested in her first production request.
4The respondents objected to production of the rental application sought by the applicant on the basis that they consider rental applications to be private as they contain personal information relating to third parties.
findings
5It is well-established that a party seeking production of documents must demonstrate that the information is “arguably relevant” to the proceeding. Documents meeting the “arguable relevance” threshold may not be disclosed or may be subjected limited disclosure if there are extenuating circumstances, such as privacy concerns that need reconciliation or protection. Confidentiality claims often arise in relation to the protection of the privacy interests of third parties in cases involving employment and rental applications.
6In my view, the rental application made by the tenant who was successful in renting the apartment the applicant applied for is arguably relevant and must be produced. Specifically, the document is arguably relevant to the applicant’s allegation that she was not rented the apartment because of her race or colour. It is also arguably relevant to the respondent’s position that it chose the successful applicant for non-discriminatory reasons. My finding in relation to the production request in this case is consistent with decisions in which the Tribunal has ordered the production of successful job applications. See, for example, Widdis v. Desjardins Group/Desjardins General Insurance, 2012 HRTO 1906 and Christopher v. Toronto (City), 2016 HRTO 285.
7In my view, it is appropriate for the respondents to redact from the document any private information such as the applicant’s Social Insurance Number and his or her contact information. The successful applicant’s name and salary should not be redacted.
Confidentiality of Documents
8Since I have ordered the respondents to disclose information which contains personal information relating to third parties, I draw the parties’ attention to Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which states:
Confidentiality of Documents Disclosed Under These Rule
3.3 Parties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal.
9As noted in Konesavarathan v. Middlesex London Health Unit, 2015 HRTO 1698, the above rule exists in recognition of the fact that, although the personal information of third parties may need to be disclosed during legal proceedings, such disclosure should respect, to the extent possible, the privacy interests of those individuals.
Order
10The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s production request is granted.
b. No later than 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents must produce to the applicant and file with the Tribunal a copy of the rental application made by the tenant who was successful in renting the apartment for which the applicant applied. As noted above, the respondents may redact from the document any private information such as the applicant’s Social Insurance Number and his or her contact information. The successful applicant’s name and salary should not be redacted.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair