AM v. Kellock, 2017 HRTO 908

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

AM Applicant

-and-

Neil Kellock Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: July 20, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 908 Indexed as: AM v. Kellock

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

AM, Applicant Megan Evans Maxwell, Counsel

Neil Kellock, Respondent No one appearing

London Police Service, Affected Party Bruce Brown, Counsel

1The applicant is seeking an order for disclosure of certain police records related to her Application, filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A hearing in this matter is scheduled for October 2017.

2The Applicant obtained redacted documents following a request made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c M.56 (“MFIPPA”). The Police Service indicated that they could not provide unredacted documents without an appropriate consent from the respondent pursuant to MFIPPA. As the respondent has not participated in these proceedings, the applicant has not been able to obtain his consent.

3The Police Service does not object to the applicant’s request provided the Tribunal issues a production order. The Police Service and the applicant have agreed to certain limited redactions, should the order for production be granted.

4Having reviewed the materials filed, I agree that the materials sought by the applicant are arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application, and should be produced. Where, as in the present case, the individual respondent is not participating in the proceedings and has not provided consent, it is appropriate to grant the order sought pursuant to Rule 1.7.p. of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. See Seck v. Mirzaei, 2014 HRTO 1381. As also noted in that decision, the parties should take note of Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules, which states:

Parties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal.

5I also note that pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction issued on July 20, 2016, the normal production rules under Rules 16 and 17 apply to this Application. The applicant is reminded that this includes an ongoing disclosure obligation, and applies to the materials ordered herein.

Order

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the London Police Service shall produce to the applicant the full contents of its file #CP-1498180 / Police Occurrence 2014-98180, subject to the normal administrative fee the Police Service may charge for such services.

2. The Police Service may redact the following information from the disclosure: a) Police codes. b) Dates of birth. c) Driver’s licence numbers. d) Unrelated incidents. e) Cell phone numbers, unless no other contact number is available. f) Vehicle identification numbers. g) Unrelated third party names. h) Medical documents, which must be obtained directly from the medical services provider. i) Any young offender information, which must be obtained by order of a Youth Court Judge.