Gwyn v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 857

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Randall Gwyn Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto -Toronto Fire Services Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Randall Gwyn Applicant

-and-

Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Randall Gwyn Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Toronto Fire Services and Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: April 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 857 Indexed as: Gwyn v. Toronto (City)

1Two of these Applications were filed under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The third was filed pursuant to s.34 of the Code. The Hearing is scheduled for June 14, 2010. The purpose of this Interim Decision addresses the parties’ Requests for Order during Proceedings.

2In a prior Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 2135 dated December 9, 2009 issued with respect to the section 53(5) Applications the Tribunal refused the applicant’s request to amend his Application to include post-March 2008 allegations.

3The applicant subsequently filed the section 34 Application on February 16, 2010 raising the post-2008 allegations of discrimination. Before the Tribunal completed processing the section 34 Application and delivered it to the respondents pursuant to the Rules the applicant filed a Request to have the section 34 Application consolidated together with the s.53(5) Applications and delivered a copy of the section 34 application to the respondents on March 19, 2010.

4On February 22, 1010 the applicant filed a statement of additional facts including the post-March 2008 allegations, as set out in the section 34 Application.

5On March 18, 2010, the respondent Toronto Professional Firefighters Association filed a Request for Order seeking to strike out the post-March 2008 allegations. The respondent City of Toronto agreed with the position of the Association. They also filed their own Request for Order on April 1, 2010 seeking to have all the Applications processed together.

6In his Response to a Request for Order, the applicant repeats his request that the section 34 Application be processed together with the s.53(5) Applications.

7In my view, it would not be fair to consolidate the section 34 application with the transitional applications at this stage in the transition stream, if the hearing on June 14, 2010 is to proceed. The respondents have not yet been given an opportunity to file Responses to the section 34 application, raise preliminary objections, obtain disclosure or witness statements. Nor it is possible to complete those steps within the section 34 stream prior to the hearing.

8The request to consolidate the section 34 Application together with the transitional Applications is denied at this time.

9Accordingly, those aspects of the applicant’s statement of additional facts relating to post-March 2008 allegations are struck.

10If any party should seek an adjournment of the hearing in order to seek consolidation of the Applications in the section 34 stream, nothing in this Interim Decision is intended to foreclose that option.

TELEPHONE EVIDENCE

11The applicant filed a request for Order during Proceedings to have a witness who resides in British Columbia give his evidence by telephone. Neither respondent has raised an objection to this Request. The Request is granted.