Solomon Fagan v. Toronto Transit Commission and Wheel-Trans, 2017 HRTO 1448

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Solomon Fagan

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission and Wheel-Trans

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: November 2, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1448 Indexed as: Fagan v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Solomon Fagan, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the production request filed by the applicant on October 16, 2017. It is his latest production request filed in his legitimate attempt to determine the last name and contact information for an individual he wishes to call as a witness in this proceeding. The individual is a security guard apparently employed by GardaWorld.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

production request

3In his October 16, 2017 Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP"), the applicant requested that GardaWorld, a third party, produce to him the full name and contact information for a security guard named "Lily" who worked at 95 St. Clair Ave. West on February 7, 2014. The applicant requested a mailing address, telephone number and email address for "Lily". He requested that GardaWorld provide this information in the text of an email rather than as an attachment.

4GardaWorld did not respond to the applicant's RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

Finding

5The basic principle in determining a production request by this Tribunal is whether the requested documents are "arguably relevant" and not subject to some form of legal privilege. The party seeking production must demonstrate a nexus between the information or document sought and the facts or issues in dispute before the Tribunal. A nexus may be established if the sought-after information goes to prove or disprove a fact or issue in dispute or provides an inferential link to support a theory of the case or line of defence. See McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1220 at paras. 12-13.

6I agree with the applicant that the information he has requested from GardaWorld is arguably relevant to the issues in this case and must be produced. The respondents have confirmed that GardaWorld was the provider of security services for the above address at the relevant time. Therefore, GardaWorld would have been the employer of the security guard in question and would have the information being sought by the applicant.

ORDER

7Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, GardaWorld must produce the following to the applicant, with a copy to the respondents and the Tribunal: the full name and contact information for "Lily" who worked as a security guard at 95 St. Clair Ave. West in Toronto on February 7, 2014. The contact information must include her mailing address, telephone number and email address. GardaWorld must provide this information by regular mail or in the text of an email rather than as an email attachment.