HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Glenn Cobb
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services Board
Respondent
AND B E T W E E N:
Glenn Cobb
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Police Services, Susan Walker-Knapper, Shelly Kurz, Michael Farrar and Bryce Evans
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Decision Date: May 22, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1015 Indexed as: Cobb v. Toronto Police Services
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Glenn Cobb, Applicant Jessica Kearsey, Counsel
Toronto Police Services Board, Toronto Police Services, Susan Walker-Knapper, Shelly Kurz, Michael Farrar and Bryce Evans, Respondents Jeffrey Board, Counsel
1The applicant has filed two Applications under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the ground of disability. The first Application, 2010-06247-I, was filed on July 14, 2010, and the second Application, 2011-10218-I, was filed on November 4, 2011.
2The first Application was scheduled for a hearing, but the matter was adjourned because the second Application was filed and the applicant requested that the Applications be consolidated.
3By way of Case Assessment Direction dated April 17, 2012, the Tribunal directed the respondents to confirm their position with respect to consolidation and mediation.
4On April 23, 2012, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal and advised that the respondents do not oppose consolidation and, because of the unsuccessful mediation held in respect of the first Application, were not amenable to mediation. In addition, the respondents renewed an earlier request for disclosure of the applicant’s medical files. The respondents indicated a production order is necessary because the applicant rescinded his consent for disclosure of his medical documentation.
5On April 26, 2012, the counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and indicated that “[t]o the best of the Applicant’s knowledge, the Applicant has previously provided his employer, the Respondent, with his consent to access his ‘medical files’ including his Medical Advisory Services (‘MAS’) file, and also the results of a scheduled Independent Medical Examination (‘IME’).”
6Given that the respondents have not corresponded with the Tribunal in response to the applicant’s position as stated above, the Tribunal will proceed on the basis that the respondents’ concerns regarding consent and disclosure have been addressed.
7Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together. In my view, the Applications should be consolidated and heard together in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as well as considerations of expense, convenience and the risk of inconsistent results. Furthermore, there was no evidence that consolidating the Applications would result in any significant prejudice to any party.
8Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications to be consolidated.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 22nd day of May, 2012.
”signed by”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair