[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 other than Frank Mitchell, as against the Association, or if he still wishes to pursue his request to add further personal respondents, 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] The deadline of November 20, 2010 was subsequently extended to December 13, 2010 at the request of the applicant’s representative. The applicant did not file any submissions by the deadline.

[3] As the applicant did not file submissions that the Application should continue as against the personal respondents other than Frank Mitchell or against the Association, the Tribunal orders that the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 3888, Ernie Thorne, Jim Shelton, Scott Marks, Jessie Caryll, Hugh Doherty, Mike Gerard and John Payne are removed as respondents to this Application and the style of cause is amended accordingly.

[4] 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.

[5] I am not seized.

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

“Signed by”

David A. Wright

Interim Chair

David Kelterborn v. City of Toronto and Frank Mitchell, 2010 HRTO 2495

Case Summary

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

[2] The deadline of November 20, 2010 was subsequently extended to December 13, 2010 at the request of the applicant’s representative. The applicant did not file any submissions by the deadline.

[4] 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.

[5] I am not seized.

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

David Kelterborn v. City of Toronto and Frank Mitchell, 2010 HRTO 2495

Case Summary

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

[2] The deadline of November 20, 2010 was subsequently extended to December 13, 2010 at the request of the applicant’s representative. The applicant did not file any submissions by the deadline.

[4] 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.

[5] I am not seized.

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

Cited By (1 case)

David Kelterborn v. City of Toronto and Frank Mitchell, 2011 HRTO 318

Cited By (1 case)

David Kelterborn v. City of Toronto and Frank Mitchell, 2011 HRTO 318