HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lyla Mahmoudi
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, Detective Peter Heard and Detective Constable Kimberly Pearce
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Mahmoudi v. The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), scheduled to proceed to a hearing on April 24, 25 and 26, 2013.
2The Notice of Confirmation of Hearing sent on June 25, 2012, setting the hearing down for April 24, 25 and 26, 2013, summarized the requirements as follows:
By July 16, 2012 you must deliver to every other party:
a list of all arguably relevant documents in the party’s possession. Where privilege is claimed over any document the party must describe the nature of the document and the reason for making the claim; and
a copy of each document contained on the list, excluding any documents for which privilege is claimed.
File a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) with the HRTO confirming delivery of the list and documents on the other parties. You do not need to file copies of the documents with the HRTO at this time.
Unless otherwise directed by the HRTO, not later than March 8, 2013, you must deliver to every other party and file with the HRTO:
a list of all documents you intend to rely on at the hearing;
a copy of each document on that list for the HRTO;
a copy of every document on that list for each party or confirmation every document has already been provided to the other parties;
a witness list that includes the name of every witness, including expert witnesses, you intend to present to the HRTO;
a statement summarizing the expected evidence of each witness;
where you intend to rely on the evidence of a proposed expert witness, a copy of the expert’s written report or a full summary of the expert’s proposed evidence and the expert’s curriculum vitae;
the Statement of Delivery of the Rule 16.2 list and documents on the other parties.
3In C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2010 HRTO 426, the Tribunal explained, at para. 7:
The exchange of documents (Rule 16) and witness statements (Rule 17) 45 days prior to the hearing is a critical part of the Tribunal’s process. It ensures that each party fully understands the other side’s case and enables the Tribunal to make Case Assessment Directions to structure the hearing. In appropriate cases, adoption of the witness statements may take the place of examination-in-chief of the witness. Witness statements should therefore be detailed and set out the particular evidence that the witness will give, rather than just general topics. A witness statement should be filed for each witness, including an applicant or individual respondent. Where the Application or Response itself makes clear the proposed testimony, the witness statement may simply confirm that the summary of facts in the Application or Response is complete and reflects the evidence that will be given by the applicant or individual respondent.
4A Case Assessment Direction was sent to the parties on April 2, 2013, alerting the applicant to the fact that she had failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17, and providing her with a further 7 days to comply. The CAD also indicated that the Application could be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not file the materials required under Rules 16 and 17, within the extended deadline of April 9, 2013.
5There is no indication that the applicant has not received the Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and the Case Assessment Direction recently issued by the Tribunal. No mail has been returned as undeliverable. I am satisfied that the applicant has received notice of the impending hearing and the Case Assessment Direction dated April 2, 2013.
6I note that the last contact from the applicant on this file was in July, 2012, when she sent a fax to the Tribunal providing her new contact information. There is no indication that the applicant sent any documents to the respondents by July 16, 2012, pursuant to the requirement in Rule 16.1. No witness statements or documents had been filed by the applicant by March 8, 2013, as required under the Rules, and the Tribunal has not received any materials from the applicant or been contacted by her since the April 2, 2013 CAD was issued.
7Accordingly, this Application is dismissed as abandoned.
Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of April, 2013
“Signed by”
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair