Raymond Oliphant v. Windsor Police Services Board and Linda Skoyles, 2010 HRTO 2255

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Raymond Oliphant

Applicant

-and-

Windsor Police Services Board and Linda Skoyles

Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 12, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2255

Indexed as: Oliphant v. Windsor Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed on June 26, 2009, under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant has alleged in his human rights complaint (the “complaint”), filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on March 23, 2007, that his right to be free from discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sex has been breached by the respondents.

3This Interim Decision deals with a preliminary Request for Order During Proceeding filed by the applicant seeking an Order that the Application be amended by the addition of new allegations which post-date the human rights complaint forming the subject matter of this Application. The respondent has indicated that it has no objection to the applicant’s Request.

4Despite the respondents’ position I am unable to grant the applicant’s Request. The Code in Sections 53(5) and 53(8) as well as the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications under Sections 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code provide that Applications made pursuant to section 53(5) must be based on the subject matter of the human rights complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

5The Tribunal has consistently interpreted these provisions as preventing substantial amendment of a transitional Application unless it is necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the Application.

6The applicant describes his complaint as ongoing and states that the complained of conduct continues to the present. The complaint was filed in March 2007 and relates to allegations from June 2005 to March 2007. However, there is no indication that the complaint was amended to add these new allegations. I also note that in 2010 HRTO 1954, I dismissed a Request to dismiss the entire Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the other proceeding dealt only with substantively similar allegations which post-dated the time period framed by the complaint.

7I find that I am bound to apply the intent expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules that transitional applications be based on the complaint underlying them. In my view it is not necessary to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the allegations raised in this Application relating to events alleged to have occurred between June 2005 and March 2007 to add allegations from June 2007 to the present. Nothing in this decision prevents the applicant from filing a new Application pursuant to section 34 of the Code.

8The Tribunal will issue Case Assessment Directions to deal with other matters raised by this Request.

9I am seized of this matter.