Gwyn v. Toronto (City), 2010 HRTO 891

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Randall Gwyn

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto - Toronto Fire Services

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Randall Gwyn

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Randall Gwyn

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Toronto Fire Services and

Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: April 23, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 891

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 applicant’s request for an adjournment.

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 delivering 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, 2010, the applicant filed a statement of additional facts including the post-March 2008 allegations, as set out in the section 34 Application.

5In a prior Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 857, I ruled that it would not be fair to consolidate the section 34 Application with the transitional Applications if the hearing of the transitional Applications scheduled on June 14, 2010 is to proceed. I noted that the respondents have not yet been given an opportunity to file Responses to the section 34 Application, raise preliminary objections, or obtain disclosure or witness statements. Nor was it possible to complete those steps within the section 34 stream prior to the transitional hearing.

6I also stated that if any party should seek an adjournment of the transitional hearing in order to seek consolidation of the Applications in the section 34 stream, nothing in my Interim Decision was intended to foreclose that option. The applicant has now done just that.

7In my view, it would be fair, just and expeditious to adjourn the transitional hearing so that the applicant’s request to consolidate can be addressed. In their Response to the section 34 Application, the respondents are directed to also file their position on the Request to consolidate all the Applications.

TELEPHONE EVIDENCE

8In Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 857, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to have a witness who resides in British Columbia give evidence by telephone. The respondent union has asked me to reconsider that interim ruling. The applicant asserts that I have no authority to reconsider my interim ruling. In light of the adjournment of the hearing, it is unnecessary to determine that issue at this time.

9I will remain seized of the Applications at this stage in order to address the request to consolidate in the section 34 stream.