Lana Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2010 HRTO 2257

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lana Smith

Complainant

-and-

Peel Regional Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: November 12, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2257 Indexed as: Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board

1This Interim Decision addresses two issues that have arisen since the Tribunal’s previous Interim Decision of October 5, 2010, 2010 HRTO 2031.

Complainant’s Request for Order During Proceedings

2First, the complainant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to view the memo books of Constable Noonan from 2000 to 2004. She states that the notes produced begin in a new notebook, but on the date of the relevant incident, when she spoke to him, he was writing approximately halfway through his memo book. She suggests that he has “scripted” his notes, which she alleges is a common practice of dishonest police officers.

3The respondent states that these allegations are entirely unfounded. It confirms that no other version of the notebook exists and no alterations were made. It states that producing the entire notebook would be an extraordinary remedy. It notes that Constable Noonan will be a material witness at the hearing of the matter and will be required to bring with him the original documents. It states that should the complainant wish to challenge his credibility at the hearing, she can do so.

4The Request for production is denied. The notebooks contain personal information about many other people and information about incidents unrelated to those in question. The complainant is entitled to cross-examine Constable Noonan at the hearing about his assertion that these are his only notes about the incident. Constable Noonan is directed to have all his notebooks from the relevant period at the hearing and the Tribunal can examine them should it determine, based upon the evidence it has heard, whether this is appropriate.

Respondent’s Concerns Regarding Production

5Second, in response to the Tribunal’s direction that the parties make best efforts to disclose all arguably relevant documents by November 2, 2010, the complainant sent a letter stating that she intends to disclose a copy of an e-mail and hopes to obtain various will-says and statements. The respondent objects, on the basis that the Tribunal’s direction was not simply to list documents that a party intended to later produce but to actually produce the documents.

6The Tribunal confirms that pursuant to its direction of October 5, 2010, the parties had the obligation to produce all documents in their possession arguably relevant to the issues in dispute. It is not clear to me whether the complainant has done so and whether the e-mail to which she refers is in her possession. The complainant is directed to immediately disclose to the respondent all documents in her possession that relate to the issues in dispute, if she has not done so.

7As determined in the previous Interim Decision, the complainant’s will-say statements and the documents she intends to rely upon are due on November 16, 2010, and at that time she must file complete will-say statements for all witnesses she intends to call, all documents upon which she intends to rely at the hearing, a statement of how the respondent allegedly violated the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and a statement of the remedies she requests. By December 14, 2010, the respondent must deliver to the complainant and file with the Tribunal complete will-say statements for all witnesses it intends to call, all documents upon which it intends to rely at the hearing, a statement of its position on the alleged Code violations and any other issues that arise from the complainant’s filings, and a response to the requested remedies.

8I am not seized.