Glen Reid v. Toronto Police Services Board and Rick Hegedus, 2010 HRTO 1246

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Glen Reid Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Rick Hegedus Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: June 2, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1246 Indexed as: Reid v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This Application was filed on June 30, 2009, under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The hearing in this matter commenced on May 7, 2010, and will continue on November 17, 18 and 19, 2010. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine the scope of the present Application.

2The applicant filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on February 17, 2006, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, disability, ethnic origin, and family status. On the first day of the hearing the applicant withdrew the allegations relating to ancestry and ethnic origin. The Application as currently framed relates to discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and family status.

3The applicant began his employment as a police officer with the respondent in September 2000. The applicant alleges that he was denied the opportunity to take courses or obtain training opportunities because of his disability and/or family status.

4The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on April 7, 2005. The applicant asserts that he was discriminated against with respect to a disability arising from this accident. The details of the alleged discrimination are set out in the complaint and form the subject matter of the present Application.

5One of the allegations is that applicant sought a transfer from 13 Division because of disability and that this transfer was denied, contrary to the Code.

6At the time the applicant filed the original complaint in February 2006, he was still employed, although he was not at work because of his belief that he required a disability-related transfer away from 13 Division. The respondents took the position that the applicant had resigned his employment in August 2006 whereas the applicant's position is that he was unable to return to work at 13 Division.

7The transitional provisions of the Code provide that the subject matter of the Application must relate to the original complaint.

8The respondent submitted that the subject matter of the present Application is restricted to events that occurred up to and including February 2006. The applicant asserted that the subject matter of the Application includes the subsequent termination/resignation in August 2006.

9In my view, the subject matter of the original complaint encompassed the applicant's allegation that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to disability when they refused his request to transfer from the 13 Division. The applicant asserts that this transfer was required to accommodate his disability. The parties' dispute over this issue continued after the date of the complaint, ultimately leading to the dismissal/resignation of the applicant from his employment. Although the dismissal/resignation occurred after the date of the complaint, the subject matter of the original complaint has not changed.

10I conclude that the subject matter of the present Application includes the interaction between the parties up to and including his final dismissal or resignation from employment in August 2006.

11The hearing will resume In November 2010 to address whether the respondents breached the applicant's rights under the Code. If so, the hearing will resume to determine the appropriate remedy.