Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 2095

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Oliver Applicant

-and-

South Simcoe Police Services Board, South Simcoe Police Service, Bruce Davis, Al Cheesman, Deborah Carmichael, Tom McDonald, Craig Johnson, Steve Wilson and Todd Ferrier Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: November 18, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2095 Indexed as: Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Services Board

1This is an Application filed on January 26, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In my Interim Decision of September 8, 2011 (2011 HRTO 1662), I directed the applicant to file an affidavit within two weeks of the decision. He failed to do so, and by Case Assessment Direction made on September 29, 2011, I made further directions on this matter.

3The applicant filed an affidavit and submissions on October 6, explaining that through inadvertence in counsel’s office, my Interim Decision did not come to the attention of counsel dealing with this Application until after the deadline. The respondent objects to the late filing of the affidavit.

4I will accept the affidavit. The delay is brief and I see no prejudice to the respondents. I will, as requested by the respondents, provide them with the opportunity to cross-examine the applicant on his affidavit.

5The respondents have reiterated their intention to call a Tribunal staff member to give evidence about conversations with the applicant, relying on section 32(11) of the Code, which states:

(11) Despite subsection (10), an employee of the Tribunal may be required to give testimony in a proceeding before the Tribunal in the circumstances prescribed by the Tribunal rules.

6The respondents have not referred to a Tribunal rule which sets out circumstances under which an employee of the Tribunal may be required to give testimony, despite the provisions of section 32(10), and I am aware of no such rule. I see no basis on which I may compel the attendance of the employee in question. To the extent that the respondents’ submissions may be understood as a request that I direct the attendance of this employee at the hearing into this matter, I decline to do so.

7I therefore direct as follows:

• The Tribunal will schedule a one-day hearing in person for the purpose of receiving the evidence and submissions of the parties on the affidavit filed by the applicant and any additional submissions on the issue of whether this Application should be re-activated.

8I am seized of this matter.