HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Sprague

Applicant

-and-

Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership dba Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club and Ticketmaster Canada LP

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 27, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 952

Indexed as: Sprague v. Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership dba Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Sprague, Applicant

Self-represented

Rogers Blue Jays Baseball Partnership dba Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club, Respondent

Arlen Sternberg, Counsel

Ticketmaster Canada LP, Respondent

Stuart Svonkin, Counsel

1The applicant filed these Applications alleging discrimination because of disability under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”). Specifically, the applicant claimed that the respondents discriminated against him by failing to sell tickets for accessible seating through the Ticketmaster Canada (“Ticketmaster”) website during the 2016 Major League Baseball playoffs and during the 2016 regular season. According to the applicant, persons requiring accessible seating were required to either call Ticketmaster or the Rogers Centre.

2These Applications are scheduled for a one day hearing on October 2, 2017.

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed on July 4, 2017, the applicant requested production of the following documents:

a. a list of all complaints and/or reports made by the respondents to any law enforcement agency between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017, in respect of fraudulent purchases of tickets for accessible seating to Toronto Blue Jays games and any events listed on Ticketmaster website;

b. a copy of all statements of claim and/or other pleadings filed by the respondents between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017, in respect of purchases of tickets for accessible seating to Toronto Blue Jays games and any events listed on Ticketmaster website;

c. a separate list of all complaints and/or reports made by the respondents to any law enforcement agency between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017, in respect of fraudulent purchases of tickets for accessible seating to Toronto Blue Jays games and any events sold by Ticketmaster their telephone sales channels; and

d. a copy of all statements of claim and/or other pleadings filed by the respondents between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017, in respect of purchases of tickets for accessible seating to Toronto Blue Jays games and any events sold through their telephone sales channels.

4I note that the applicant has filed similar wide-ranging production requests in some of the many other Applications he has filed with this Tribunal. See, for example, Sprague v. Sinai Health System, 2017 HRTO 339 and Sprague v. Yufest, 2017 HRTO 810.

5The respondents oppose the applicant’s production request on the basis that the documents are irrelevant and because the request is overly broad, lacks proportionality and raises privacy issues.

decision

6Under Rule A3.1(c) of the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario Common Rules, the Tribunal has the power to interpret its rules and procedures to ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding. In order to ensure the proportionate use of Tribunal resources in this case, I only provide abbreviated reasons for my determinations.

7The basic principle in determining a production request by this Tribunal is whether the requested documents are “arguably relevant”. 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.

8The applicant appears to be requesting the wide-ranging documents he is seeking because the respondents asserted in their Responses that making accessible seating available through the Ticketmaster website might create a risk that these tickets would be purchased by non-disabled persons.

9The applicant’s production request is denied. The materials he is seeking are wholly disproportionate to the dispute in this case which is scheduled for a one day hearing. The applicant’s production request risks derailing this proceeding into a consideration of issues that have little relevance to the case. In my view, the information the applicant is seeking can be elicited through the questioning of respondent witnesses through cross-examination. If the respondents are taking the position that a reason they did not sell tickets for accessible seating through the Ticketmaster website is due to the risk of improper purchases by non-disabled persons, it will be up to the respondents to bring evidence to support this position. In my view, there is no basis for making the wide-ranging production request sought by the applicant.

order

10For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s production request is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of July, 2017.