David Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Service, 2013 HRTO 1217

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Oliver

Applicant

-and-

South Simcoe Police Service, Bradford West Gwillimbury/Innisfil Police Services Board, Bruce Davis, Steve Wilson and Todd Ferrier

Respondents

-and-

South Simcoe Police Association

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: July 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1217

Indexed as: Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Oliver, Applicant

Bruce Best, Counsel

South Simcoe Police Service, Bradford West Gwillimbury/Innisfil Police Services Board, Bruce Davis, Steve Wilson and Todd Ferrier, Respondents

Patty Murray, Counsel

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”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment, on the grounds of perceived ancestry and creed, arising out of the applicant’s termination from employment as a police officer with South Simcoe Police Service (the “Service”), and his subsequent suspension. The applicant also alleges harassment in the workplace, as well as reprisal or threat of reprisal under the Code.

REQUEST FOR SUMMARY HEARING

2The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing and written submissions with respect to paragraphs 8 to 13 inclusive. The applicant filed written submissions opposing the Request.

3The respondents’ Request for Summary Hearing is denied, without reasons, in accordance with Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

NEXT STEPS AND DIRECTIONS

4The hearing of this Application has been scheduled for 3 days commencing October 16, 2013. The parties agreed to delay the exchange of their arguably relevant documents until the Tribunal determined the Request for Summary Hearing. Now that it has been denied, the parties must exchange these documents. The parties must also ensure that they comply in a timely way with the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to the filing of the documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing and with respect to the summaries of their witnesses.

5The respondents appear to indicate in their submissions attached to their Request for Summary Hearing that all findings of fact made in the February 17, 2010 Judgement of Adjudicator Tweedy in the Police Service Act hearing are not binding on this Tribunal, and that the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1662, has so decided. The parties must exchange and file written submissions at least 21 days prior to the hearing which includes argument as to whether or not the Tribunal might and should rely upon the findings of fact made in the Judgement of Adjudicator Tweedy. If the parties have agreed that the Tribunal may rely on only some of those findings, then the parties must specify in their submissions the findings to which they mutually agree.

6As stated in the previous Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 387, mediation-adjudication will be offered at the commencement of the hearing on October 16, 2013, pursuant to Rule 15A of the Tribunal’s Rules. If the parties do not agree to participate in mediation-adjudication, or if it does not resolve the Application, then the Tribunal will deal with any outstanding requests filed between now and the hearing. If there is time for evidence on the first day of the hearing, then the applicant’s first witness must be prepared to testify, whether that person be himself or another of his witnesses.