Maconovic v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1175

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jemila Maconovic Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: July 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1175 Indexed as: Maconovic v. Toronto Police Services Board

1On July 13, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1017, noting that a Response to this Application had not been filed within the timeline set by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, and directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days of receipt of the Interim Decision.

2On July 22, 2009, the respondent’s solicitor e-mailed the Tribunal, and indicated that while the respondent had received the Interim Decision, it has never received the Application to which it was directed to respond. The respondent’s solicitor requested that the Application be delivered by e-mail to him given the disruptions of a recent municipal strike, and that the respondent be allowed the standard time to deliver a Response.

3The applicant opposes the request. I have reviewed her emails of July 27 and 29, 2009 which carefully and comprehensively set out her reasons for her position. She notes the respondent has been aware of this Application for some time, and had ample time to respond to it. She also questions the respondent’s counsel’s assertion that he did not receive the Application. Furthermore, she notes that, if the request is granted, it will further delay this proceeding. In her view, the respondent’s behaviour is evidence of a disrespect for the Tribunal’s process.

4An earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 642, directed the Tribunal to send the Application to the respondent. The Application appears to have been mailed to the respondent at its corporate address. Notwithstanding receiving the Interim Decision directing delivery to the respondent, counsel did not raise the failure to receive the Application until after receiving the Interim Decision noting the failure to respond. At the same time I have no reason to believe Mr. Baldwin, as an officer of the court, would knowingly mislead the Tribunal.

5While I appreciate the applicant’s concerns, I note that the respondent now indicates an intention to respond to the Application and did so within days of receiving the July 13 Interim Decision. Also, the delay incurred is not excessive and there is no suggestion from the applicant it will prejudice her ability to present her claim. Given all the circumstances, I am satisfied that a fair, just and expeditious process is best served by allowing the respondent’s request and providing it with sufficient time to provide a full response to the Application. At the same time, I agree with the applicant that the respondent has been aware of the issues in dispute in this Application since at least early May. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to allow the respondent the usual time to file its Response. Instead, I abridge the time, and direct the respondent to file its full Response with the Tribunal within 20 days of receiving this Interim Decision and the Application from the Tribunal.

6The Tribunal will e-mail, mail and fax the Interim Decision and the Application to the respondent’s solicitor. The respondent is reminded that the Application has been amended and certain allegations were withdrawn or struck as confirmed at paragraphs 18-22 of the May 15, 2009 Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 642.