HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kelly Breen
Applicant
-and-
Hanover Police Service and Hanover Police Services Board
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Kelly Breen
Applicant
-and-
Hanover Police Service
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Breen v. Hanover Police Service
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kelly Breen, Applicant
Christian Vernon, Counsel
Hanover Police Service and Hanover Police Services Board, Respondents
Christine Hobkinson, Counsel
1This is an Interim Decision in respect of two Applications filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application filed on May 1, 2012 (“the first Application”) alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. On March 28, 2013, the Tribunal sent a Notice to the parties that the hearing of the first Application is to commence on November 18, 2013. The second Application was filed on June 5, 2013 (“the second Application”). It alleges discrimination because of disability and reprisal for events which allegedly occurred after the first Application was filed.
2On October 1, 2013, the parties jointly requested the consolidation of the Applications, and an adjournment of the hearing of the first Application so that the second Application may be processed in its normal course with respect to the Tribunal’s timelines and then heard with the first Application.
3The parties point to the following factors to justify the request to consolidate and adjourn the hearing of the first Application:
The parties to both Applications are the same.
The reprisal allegations made in the second Application are alleged to stem from facts and events set out in the first Application.
There are significant overlapping facts between the Applications and many of the witnesses and documents will be the same so that the hearing time and inconvenience to witnesses would be minimized.
Adjouning the hearing for the first Application would allow time for the second Application to be fully processed before a hearing.
4I agree with the parties that these factors justify the consolidation of the Applications and the adjournment of the hearing scheduled to begin November 18, 2013.
order
5The Tribunal grants the requests to consolidate the Applications and to adjourn the hearing until the second Application may be fully processed so that it may be heard together with the first Application at a hearing which will be scheduled after the respondents file a Response to the first Application and the applicant files a Reply.
direction
6The hearing booked for November 18-20, 2013 for the first Application is cancelled.
7As it appears that the only respondent to the second Application (Hanover Police Service) has not yet filed a Response to the second Application, it must do so immediately.
8The parties need not file witness statements or documents upon which they intend to rely at the hearing until the hearing has been rescheduled after the second Application has been processed.
9Pursuant to the request of the parties, the Tribunal will not schedule a mediation for the second Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of October, 2013.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair