Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1222

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jemila Macanovic Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Genevieve Anthony Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: July 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1222

Indexed as: Macanovic v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jemila Macanovic, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent David Gourlay, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services and housing because of disability, and reprisal. The Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”) and the applicant’s former landlord are the named respondents. The Application is scheduled for a hearing on October 22, 2013.

2On June 8, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking leave to amend the Application to add further allegations of discrimination on June 5 and 6, 2013 against the Toronto Police. The applicant alleges that police officers and staff were abusive and threatening towards her because they are upset about her human rights complaint and they have denied police services to her as a form of reprisal. The applicant seeks an order from the Tribunal requiring the TPSB to identify all police officers on duty on June 5 and 6, 2013 at the time the applicant’s calls were made, and produce a recording of her calls on those days.

3On June 10, 2013, the applicant amended the RFOP to add a further allegation of harassment and reprisal concerning the setting up of a special procedure by the Toronto Police to deal with complaints from the applicant.

4On June 18, 2013, the applicant filed a second RFOP seeking leave to amend the Application. In this RFOP, she clarifies and provides further explanation regarding the original allegations in the Application.

5The TPSB does not object to the amendments sought by the applicant. It does object to the disclosure requests on the basis that they are overly broad and premature. It also objects to the production of audio recordings and submits the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make such an order. Finally, the TPSB objects to the applicant’s request to file evidence concerning a prior process that was set up to deal with the applicant’s police complaints on the basis that the applicant’s allegation is not sufficiently particularized.

6The TDSB argues that if the amendments are allowed, it has the right to file an amended response and provide documentary disclosure in relation to the new allegations. The TPSB submits that if the amendments are allowed, a new timetable for disclosure should be set and the hearing adjourned to a new date.

ORDER

7The amendments to the Application are allowed on consent.

8In my view, there is no need to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 22, 2013. As stated in my Case Assessment Direction dated May 7, 2013, the applicant’s evidence will be heard on that day. However, in light of the amendments to the Application, the following timetable will apply:

a. The TPSB may file an amended Response by August 16, 2013;

b. The applicant may file an amended Reply by September 3, 2013;

c. The parties shall exchange arguably relevant documents regarding the amended Application and will-say statements by October 1, 2013.

d. The hearing will proceed on October 22, 2013 on the applicant’s evidence alone.

9The applicant’s request for the names of all police officers who worked on June 5 and 6, 2013 at the time of the applicant’s calls is denied. The request is overly broad. The TPSB should provide, in its October 1, 2013 disclosure, the names of the officers and staff who communicated with the applicant on those days. The applicant and the TPSB should also provide disclosure relating to any special procedure by the Toronto Police for addressing complaints by the applicant.

10The TPSB argues the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order production of audio recordings between the applicant and the police. It is unclear why this position is being taken when it appears audio recordings have been produced by the TPSB in its disclosure of arguably relevant documents. In the event the TPSB objects to providing the audio recordings for June 5 and 6, 2013, it should advise the Tribunal by July 22, 2013.

11On July 8, 2013, the applicant filed a third RFOP seeking further production from the TPSB. The TPSB has until July 22, 2013 to respond to this request. The Tribunal will rule on this RFOP after receiving the response from the TPSB.

12One final note. If the parties seek an order from the Tribunal, RFOPs must be filed. RFOPs allow the Tribunal and the responding parties to follow the process set out in Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Requests made in written correspondence to the Tribunal do not have the benefit of this process.