C.G. v. Timmins Police Service, 2013 HRTO 521

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.G.

Applicant

-and-

Timmins Police Service, Kapuskasing Ontario Provincial Police, Timmins District Hospital, North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 27, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 521 Indexed as: C.G. v. Timmins Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

C.G., Applicant

Self-represented

Timmins Police Service, Kapuskasing Ontario Provincial Police, Timmins District Hospital, North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services, Respondents

No one appearing

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, goods and facilities because of disability, family status and association with a person identified by a Code-ground.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request for an Order During Proceedings the applicant filed on March 1, 2013 (the “Request”). None of the respondents responded to the Request and the time for doing so has passed. The applicant seeks the following:

1. An order requiring Dr. Ucar of the respondent Timmins District Hospital to swear an affidavit regarding an alleged incident involving the applicant;

2. An order requiring an Officer Primrose of the Ontario Provincial Police to swear an affidavit regarding whether he made certain comments about the applicant and to produce an occurrence report regarding July 12, 2012 and any other “officer notes” regarding this matter;

3. An order adding Laura Yuskow and Lindsey St. Jacques of the respondent North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services as individual respondents to the Application;

4. An order adding the applicant’s daughter, E.G.J. as a “special party” to the Application;

5. An order requiring the respondent Timmins Police Services to identify its agent or lawyer in this matter;

6. An order requiring, Dr. Ucar, Ms. St. Jacques and the applicant to undergo polygraph examinations regarding the issues in dispute; and,

7. An order adjourning the Application sine die on seven days’ notice until the completion of the court proceedings related to this matter.

Decision

3For the reasons that follow, the Request is denied.

Production of Evidence/Polygraphs Test

4Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets outs parties’ obligations to disclose arguably relevant documents and the evidence upon which they intend to rely in advance of a merits hearing. The obligations are triggered after the Tribunal schedules a hearing to determine the merits of an application, which has not yet occurred in this matter. Rather, the Tribunal has scheduled a Summary Hearing in this matter to determine whether the Application should be dismissed because it has no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the applicant’s requests for the respondents to produce evidence are premature. In any event, the Tribunal does not order witnesses to undergo polygraph testing and, in my view, the disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 will generally render affidavits unnecessary.

5As noted, the Tribunal has scheduled a Summary Hearing in this matter to determine whether the Application should be dismissed. In these circumstances, it is also premature, in my view, to consider adding parties to the dispute until after the Tribunal determine whether the Application may proceed. If the Application continues after the Summary Hearing, the applicant may renew her request to add parties.

6By letter dated January 23, 2012, the respondent Timmins Police Service identified Chief John Gauthier as the person to whom documents should be delivered. There is no indication that the Timmins Police Service has retained counsel; therefore, it would appear that Chief Gauthier is its representative, at this time.

Deferral

7In my view, the applicant’s request to adjourn the hearing of the Application pending the outcome of related proceedings in court amounts to a request to defer. The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

8The applicant has not identified the other proceeding that is purportedly related to the Application other than to describe it as “court proceedings” and it is not clear if there are more than one such proceeding. The applicant did not describe the nature of these proceedings, the issues in disputes or when the proceedings are scheduled. In these circumstances, there is no basis to defer the Application, at this time.

Order

9The Request is dismissed.