Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 628

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lana Smith

Complainant

-and-

Peel Regional Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: March 30, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 628

Indexed as: Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lana Smith, Complainant No Submissions

Peel Regional Police Services Board Respondent Lauri A. Reesor, Counsel

Selwyn Pieters, proposed witness Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses a Request to quash a summons issued by the applicant.

BACKGROUND

2The complainant, Lana Smith, was a police constable with the respondent Peel Regional Police Services Board (“Peel”) between 1989 and March 17, 2003. On August 10, 2004, she filed a Complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) against Peel. She alleged that, while it employed her, the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, and sex and engaged in reprisals contrary to the Code. She also alleged that Peel engaged in continuing reprisals against her contrary to the Code after she left to join the OPP on March 17, 2003.

3On July 29, 2008, the Commission exercised its discretion under the Code not to deal with the part of the Complaint alleging discrimination because of colour, race, sex and reprisal during the period that the complainant was employed by Peel. The Commission concluded that the respondent would be significantly prejudiced were it required to provide a detailed defence in respect of the very general allegations dating back as many as 10 years earlier, from 1996 to 2003.

4The Commission decided to refer to the Tribunal only that part of the Complaint which relates to alleged discrimination and reprisals against the complainant by the respondent after March 2003. The hearing in this matter is scheduled to commence on April 18, 2011.

5The applicant delivered a summons to her former lawyer compelling him to attend the hearing. The lawyer applied to the Tribunal to have the summons quashed on the basis that it was not properly served (no conduct money was delivered), that he had no relevant evidence to give, and that any evidence he could give would be protected by solicitor client privilege. The respondent agreed that the lawyer was not a compellable witness. The applicant did not respond to the lawyer’s Request to quash the summons.

6The complainant has not given any indication what evidence she believes her former lawyer could provide in respect of this Application. She has not responded to the Request to quash the summons, nor indicated that she would waive solicitor client privilege. In these circumstances, the summons is quashed and the proposed witness need not attend the hearing.