Cook v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 1138

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wayne Cook

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board and David Merkel

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1138

Indexed as : Cook v. Ottawa Police Services Board

1This is an Application made under s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, dated June 29, 2009. The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on June 19, 2007.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address various Requests for Orders that have been filed by the applicant since my Interim Decision, dated April 28, 2010, 2010 HRTO 923.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order, dated May 17, 2010 seeking production from the Ministry of the Attorney General of a “human rights release”. It is unclear to me how this document is arguably relevant to the preliminary matter to be heard on May 27, 2010. I am aware from previous material filed by the applicant that he seeks to establish that no release of his human rights complaint was obtained from him by the respondents. It is unclear to me how a “human rights release” in the possession of the Ministry of the Attorney General is arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of whether the Application is barred in whole or in part by the applicant’s civil action, or why, if this is a release that was signed by the applicant, this document would not already be in his possession. The material filed by the applicant provides no assistance in this regard. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for production by the Ministry of the Attorney General is denied.

4The applicant also filed a Request for Order, dated May 17, 2010 seeking an order for production from the Ontario Human Rights Commission of “human rights releases on file”. This Request for Order does not appear to have been served on the Commission. For the same reasons as expressed above, it is not clear to me from the material filed by the applicant how these documents are arguably relevant to the preliminary issue or why the applicant himself would not have these documents in his possession. Accordingly, this request also is denied.

5The applicant also seeks reconsideration of my Interim Decision, dated April 28, 2010. In accordance with Rule 25.1 of the Tribunal’s Transitional Rules, reconsideration can only be sought from a final decision. As my decision addressed interim matters, and was not a final decision in this proceeding, the applicant has no ability to request reconsideration. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.

6The applicant has further filed a Request for Order, dated May 19, 2010 requesting that the respondents’ request for dismissal of the Application be struck due to non-compliance with my order for production by the respondents as set out in my April 28, 2010 decision, or in the alternative an order requiring the respondents to comply with my order. My order for production by the respondents already has been issued and so there is no purpose served in me issuing yet another order.

7My order was for the respondents to produce “all documents which are arguably relevant to their request to dismiss, including any correspondence or other documents relating to or leading to the dismissal order issued by the court in October 2008 and any release that may have been obtained from the applicant”. These documents were to have been disclosed to the applicant and filed with the Tribunal by no later than 20 days after the date of my Decision, which would have been by May 18, 2010.

8To date, no such documents have been filed by the respondents with the Tribunal nor apparently have any such documents been disclosed to the applicant. It is unknown to me at this time, as the time for responding to the applicant’s Request for Order does not expire until after the scheduled hearing date, why no such documents have been disclosed or filed by the respondents. It may be because there are no such documents; or there may be some other reason. In any event, in my view, the appropriate forum in which to address this issue at this stage of the proceeding is at the hearing on May 27, 2010.

9Finally, the applicant requests an adjournment of the May 27, 2010 hearing date until disclosure has been made. In my view, that is not appropriate or necessary at this stage. As stated above, the issue of disclosure may be addressed at the hearing on May 27, 2010. If at that time, it is determined that disclosure ordered from the respondents by me was not complied with, then the adjudicator conducting the hearing will be in the best position to determine the appropriate response. As a result, the applicant’s request for an adjournment of the May 27, 2010 hearing date is denied, and the hearing of the preliminary issue raised by the respondents will proceed as scheduled on that date.

10Any further Requests for Order filed by the applicant will be addressed by the adjudicator at the hearing.