[1] In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 20, 2010, the Tribunal held as follows:

In Hansen v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 13, at para. 25, this matter was placed in abeyance until the decision in the preliminary matters in the Boyd case. That case is now scheduled for a hearing on the merits, to commence in June 2011. The Tribunal is of the view that it would not be fair, just and expeditious for this matter to continue to wait for the outcome in Boyd before dealing with preliminary issues.

In accordance with its powers under Rule 1.7, the Tribunal therefore makes the following directions:

If the applicant takes the position that the Application should continue as against the personal respondents or as against the Association, he shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal by November 20, 2010 complete written submissions explaining why, in his view, the Application should not be dismissed as against these respondents in light of the reasoning in Boyd v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 607. The respondents need not make submissions on these issues unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

[2] As the applicant did not file submissions that the Application should continue as against the personal respondents or against the Association, the Tribunal orders that, Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 3888, Wayne McLean, Andrew Kostiuk, Jim Bonner, Eddie Moore, Doctor Forman, Jim Shelton, Hugh Doherty, John Barben, Ronald McDonald, Jack Kirk, Carl Quinn, Bill Coe, Randy Smith, Stan McKelvey, Don Knox, Frank Lamie and Scott Marks are removed as respondents to this Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

[3] Should the Association seek leave to intervene it shall file its request in accordance with the Rules by January 10, 2011. The other parties may respond in accordance with the Rules.

[4] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of December, 2010.

“Signed by”

David A. Wright

Interim Chair

Kent Carswell v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 2494

Case Summary

[1] In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 20, 2010, the Tribunal held as follows:

[3] Should the Association seek leave to intervene it shall file its request in accordance with the Rules by January 10, 2011. The other parties may respond in accordance with the Rules.

[4] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of December, 2010.

Kent Carswell v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 2494

Case Summary

[1] In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 20, 2010, the Tribunal held as follows:

[3] Should the Association seek leave to intervene it shall file its request in accordance with the Rules by January 10, 2011. The other parties may respond in accordance with the Rules.

[4] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of December, 2010.

[1] In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 20, 2010, the Tribunal held as follows:

[3] Should the Association seek leave to intervene it shall file its request in accordance with the Rules by January 10, 2011. The other parties may respond in accordance with the Rules.

[4] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December, 2010.

[1] In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 20, 2010, the Tribunal held as follows:

[3] Should the Association seek leave to intervene it shall file its request in accordance with the Rules by January 10, 2011. The other parties may respond in accordance with the Rules.

[4] I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December, 2010.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of December, 2010.

Dated at Toronto, this 15^th day of December, 2010.