Paul Matthews v. Toronto Police Service, 2010 HRTO 2355

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Matthews

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Service

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: November 29, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2355 Indexed as: Matthews v. Toronto Police Service

1The applicant filed this Application, dated April 9, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O.1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

2The respondent has not yet provided a Response to the Application because it is of the view that it requires access to the applicant’s Medical Advisory Service (“MAS”) file prior to doing so. To that end, it requested that the applicant provide his consent to allow the respondent’s counsel to review his MAS file. The applicant indicated that he was only prepared to provide his consent if he were given a copy of the file and was allowed to sit in on any discussions between MAS personnel and the respondent’s counsel. These conditions were deemed unacceptable.

3On July 20, 2010, the respondent then brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) for an order requiring the applicant to provide his consent, and an extension of time in which to file the Response. The applicant filed his objection to the Request in a Response dated September 17, 2010.

4The Tribunal has been asked for similar orders with respect to access to disclosure of Ontario Student Records, in applications involving school boards. The recent cases of the Tribunal have weighed the competing interests of the parties and held that such requests were premature at the stage of exchange of pleadings.

5As noted by the Tribunal in these cases, a party’s disclosure obligations are normally triggered when a hearing is scheduled. It is understood that once such disclosure is made, the respondent may well have a different understanding of the case, and it may be necessary at that stage to amend its Response, in which case it may ask for leave to do so.

6Given the time required to rule on this issue, it is appropriate to grant the respondent’s extension request. Within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent must file its Response.

7I am not seized of this matter.