HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Darby Dunn
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie and United Transportation Union, Local 104
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City)
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 400 University Avenue, 7th Floor Toronto ON M7A 1T7 Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca
APPEARANCES
Darby Dunn, Complainant ) On his own behalf
The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, ) Nuala Kenny, Counsel Respondent ) Matt Caputo, Student-at-Law
United Transportation Union, Local 104 ) Brian Shell and Respondent ) Melissa Atkins, Counsel
Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Melanie Shulman, Counsel
Introduction
1This decision follows the pre-hearing conference call in this matter, held on May 7, 2008. The complaints, dated May 21 and May 27, 2004, were referred to the Tribunal by the Commission by letter dated October 16, 2007. Following a Tribunal mediation, which did not result in a settlement, the parties filed pleadings.
2The pleadings of the Commission and the complainant set out a large number of facts dating back to an injury the complainant suffered in February 1992. In addition to filing a response to the Commission’s and the complainant’s pleadings, the respondents raise various preliminary objections. They argue that the Tribunal should not hear the matter at all and, in the alternative, that some of the allegations should not be heard. They also raise various concerns about the documents filed by the Commission and the complainant as pleadings.
3During the conference call, I invited the parties to make submissions on the appropriate process for addressing the preliminary issues. Following those submissions, I outlined a proposed process and invited comments and discussion from the parties. Having considered all of the materials filed with the Tribunal and the submissions of the parties on the conference call, I am of the view that in this case, given the nature of the issues and the preliminary objections, it is appropriate for all preliminary issues regarding the nature and scope of the allegations properly before me to be dealt with at a one-day oral hearing, with written submissions in advance. Prior to the respondents making their arguments, it is necessary that the complainant and Commission clarify, in general terms, each decision or action of each respondent which they allege constitutes discrimination against the complainant. Accordingly, I make the following order setting out the next stages in this proceeding.
ORDER
4The Tribunal makes the following Order:
(1) By May 16, 2008, the Commission, and complainant if he wishes, shall write to the Tribunal, with copies to the other parties, setting out in general terms the actions of each respondent that they allege have violated the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended and identifying where, in the pleadings filed with the Tribunal, the facts supporting each allegation are identified.
(2) By June 16, 2008, the respondents shall file an outline of their argument on all preliminary issues that affect whether the complaint may proceed and the scope of the issues to be addressed. They shall also file a book of documents containing any documents upon which they rely and a book of authorities. They may, should they wish, file affidavits containing any testimonial evidence upon which they rely.
(3) By July 16, 2008, the Commission, and the complainant if he wishes, shall file an outline of their argument in response. They shall also file a book of documents containing any documents upon which they rely and a book of authorities. They may, should they wish, file affidavits containing any testimonial evidence upon which they rely.
(4) By July 30, 2008 the respondents shall file any reply materials, which may include further argument, documents, authorities, or affidavits in reply to the issues raised by the Commission and complainant.
(5) By September 1, 2008, any party that wishes to cross-examine another party at the hearing on any affidavits that have been filed shall write to the Tribunal identifying the reasons such cross-examination is required and would be of assistance in deciding the preliminary issues.
(6) A hearing of the preliminary issues will be held on September 18, 2008 in Sault Ste. Marie, commencing at 9:00 a.m. The parties will be notified of the venue by letter from the Registrar.
(7) Change in counsel of any party will not be an acceptable reason for varying this timetable.
(8) Any concerns regarding the implementation of the timetable should be raised with the Tribunal by letter to the Registrar, promptly after they arise.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of May, 2008.
“Signed by”
David A. Wright
Vice-Chair