Goodridge v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 745

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Greg Goodridge Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission Commission

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Anthony Piazza and Maria Perry Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: June 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 745 Indexed as: Goodridge v. Toronto Police Services Board

1A Pre-Hearing Conference Call was held in this matter on June 2, 2009. During the call, Mr. Goodridge again asked that I recuse myself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. The other parties disagree that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias.

2Mr. Goodridge raised various reasons in support of his request. Some reflect issues that have been addressed in my previous Interim Decisions, 2009 HRTO 723 and 2009 HRTO 94.

3Mr. Goodridge suggests that he was taken by surprise by the fact that I asked the parties their position on whether the hearing would be bifurcated so that liability would be determined prior to remedy, and then made a ruling, after hearing submissions, that this would be done. He stated that as this was not addressed in the Tribunal’s letter scheduling the call, it was not proper for me to do so. Rule 69 of the Rules of Practice provides as follows:

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal may give directions or make orders as it considers appropriate, including:

(a) setting dates for any stage in the proceeding, including dates for the hearing of the substance of the complaint;

(b) resolving or determining any issue;

(c) discussing whether mediation or further mediation may be appropriate;

(d) determining the order in which issues in a proceeding will be considered and decided.

There was nothing that suggested bias in my raising and deciding the issue of the order in which issues in this proceeding would be determined.

4Mr. Goodridge also suggested that I was rude or condescending to him on the call. I disagree. My interventions and admonitions to Mr. Goodridge to use appropriate language and follow my directions during the call were controlling the process and ensuring respect for the other parties and the Tribunal. They do not suggest a reasonable apprehension of bias. As the Vice-chair presiding, I am responsible for directing the proceedings before me.

5During the call, there was some discussion about availability of hearing dates that were being discussed. Counsel for the respondent in Mr. Goodridge’s case is also counsel on another matter before the Tribunal involving the Commission, and the parties have been discussing their available dates in that matter. To ensure that there was no double booking, counsel for the Commission asked her colleague, who is counsel for the Commission in the other matter, to briefly attend on the call to confirm that the dates we were about to set for Mr. Goodridge’s case would not result in a double booking. He did so. Mr. Goodridge suggests that this is highly improper as it resulted in time on “his call” being taken and argues that the fact that I permitted it suggests a reasonable apprehension of bias. I fail to see how this was the case. I appreciated Commission counsel’s assistance in ensuring that the dates were available to all.

6There is no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias and the request that I recuse myself is denied.

7Finally, I confirm that any preliminary matters that may arise must be brought well in advance of the hearing dates, which are now scheduled in October of 2009. The parties’ attention is also directed to the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments which is available on the Tribunal’s web site or from the Registrar – Transition.