Wilson v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2012 HRTO 1885

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeff Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 4, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1885 Indexed as: Wilson v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeff Wilson, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Respondent Heather McIvor, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with the applicant's request to add a respondent, for the production of documents and to be allowed access to a Hamilton courthouse.

BACKGROUND

2The Application arises out of a letter sent to the applicant on February 10, 2011, from Sgt. Jorge Lasso, an officer of the Hamilton Police Service, responsible for court services at a courthouse in Hamilton. The letter states that the applicant was seen on a security video entering the courthouse through a side door on December 22, 2010. It states that the courthouse is closed to the public at that time of day, and the applicant can be seen following behind an employee as the employee used an access card to enter the building.

3The letter advised the applicant that since he was no longer employed by any agency at the courthouse, he no longer had authority to enter the building during off hours and his actions constitute an act of trespassing. The letter advised the applicant that he is now prohibited from entering any courthouse in Hamilton, unless there is a legal matter that requires his attendance, and subject to proof of his required attendance.

4The Application alleges that the decision to issue a trespass notice and impose a prohibition against the applicant is a continuation of the discrimination and harassment the applicant encountered while an employee of the respondent. He also alleges that it amounts to retaliation against him for having pursued prior work-related grievances with the respondent.

5The Application proceeded to a Summary hearing on March 13, 2012. The Tribunal subsequently issued an Interim Decision dated March 15, 2012, 2012 HRTO 538, in which it determined that the Application was dismissed in relation to its allegations of discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, creed, and sexual orientation and would continue to a hearing on its merits only in regards to the Application's allegation of reprisal.

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER DURING PROCEEDING

6On October 3, 2012, the Applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP"). The RFOP requests that Sgt. Jorge Lasso/Hamilton Police Services be added as a respondent(s). The applicant submits that this is necessary in order to ensure Sergeant Lasso's participation in the hearing scheduled for November 1, 2012. The applicant states that he is not seeking a finding against Sgt. Lasso or the Hamilton Police Services (although he would not be averse to any such finding).

7The RFOP requests that the Tribunal compel the Hamilton Police Services to remove the current prohibition that prevents the applicant from attending any Hamilton courthouses in order for the applicant to access the courts so he can conduct an investigation and collect evidence in support of his case.

8The RFOP requests that the Tribunal direct the Hamilton Polices Services to produce Sgt. Lasso's original notes related to the decision to issue the applicant with a trespass notice and to send these notes to an expert for authentication. It appears the respondent has produced photocopies of these notes and the applicant is concerned about the authenticity of these notes.

9The RFOP requests that the Tribunal compel Sgt. Lasso and the Hamilton Police Services to disclose certain information related to these notes (e.g. who made the original complaint to Sgt. Lasso, what special constable was on the door on December 22, 2010 when the applicant entered the courthouse) as well as a copy of the Hamilton Police services policy concerning a "Breach of Security'.

10The respondent filed a response on October 4, 2012, opposing the applicant's RFOP. The respondent submits that the applicant has known since at least February 11, 2011, that the trespass letter was issued by the Hamilton Police Service and yet has yet has not sought to name it as a respondent until now. The respondent submits that the request to add the Hamilton Police Services is out of time as the Tribunal requires all Applications to be filed within one year of the facts giving rise to an Application. It further submits that the request is untimely in that in that it is made less than one month before the scheduled hearing and that this late request is another example of the applicant's general failure to pursue his Application on a timely basis. The respondent further notes that the applicant is not even seeking a finding against the Hamilton Police Services.

11The respondent submits that it intends to call Sgt. Lasso as a witness and so the applicant will have the opportunity to cross-examine him and that he can put his issues regarding the authenticity of Sgt. Lasso's notes to Sgt. Lasso at that time and can express his concerns before the Tribunal.

12While the applicant has not specifically asked for an adjournment in this matter, the respondent further submits that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider adjourning the scheduled hearing to accommodate the applicant's late requests.

13The respondent does not specifically respond to the applicant's request to access the courthouse to collect evidence but submits that the applicant has provided no disclosure and no direct evidence to support his allegations. It submits that the applicant's request is a fishing expedition which comes two business days before the Tribunal's deadline for filing all relevant documents, witness lists and statements of evidence, a deadline that has been extended twice at the request of the Applicant

DECISION

14The applicant's RFOP is dismissed in its entirety. The request to add Sgt. Lasso and/or the Hamilton Police Services as respondents is decidedly untimely, given it is made less than a month before the scheduled hearing and given that the applicant has known for a considerable period of time the role that Sgt. Lasso and the Hamilton Police Services played in the events that gave rise to the Application. It is also not even evident that the applicant is alleging that Sgt. Lasso and the Hamilton Police Services have violated his rights under the Code, given his statement that he is not seeking a finding against the Hamilton Police Services.

15The applicant does express a concern about Sgt. Lasso's participation in the hearing process. It appears that Sgt. Lasso is being called as a witness by the respondent. The applicant will have the opportunity to cross-examine him on issues of concern (e.g. who made the original complaint to Sgt. Lasso), as well as the issue of the authenticity of Sgt. Lasso's notes.

16The Tribunal will not order the Hamilton Police Services to lift its trespass order allow the applicant access to a courthouse. Leaving aside whether this is even possible it is, in my view, decidedly untimely and not sufficiently related to the obtaining of identified, arguably relevant evidence. The request for the Hamilton Police Services to produce a policy document on "Breach of Security" is again untimely given that the deadline for the parties disclosing their hearing documents is October 9, 2012.

17The applicant has had ample notice of his hearing scheduled for November 1, 2012, as well as his obligations to prepare for this hearing in a timely way. His requests are not ones that will be allowed at this late juncture nor are they ones that would form the basis for allowing an adjournment request. As I stated in my October 2, 2012 Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1872:

The applicant has not pursued his obligations in preparing for a hearing in a timely manner... He, alone, is responsible for his present circumstances.