Dwayne Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 877

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dwayne Manning

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, William Blair, Nicholas Chaudhary and Sean Moxhan

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: May 22, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 877 Indexed as: Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A hearing into this matter is scheduled to take place on May 27, 28 and 29, 2013. A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) was issued on May 14, 2013, alerting the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with the obligations under Rules 16 and 17 to deliver to every other party and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements, and copies of documents the party intends to rely upon no later than 45 days prior to the hearing. Those documents and witness statements were due on April 12, 2013.

3In addition, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), in which they sought an order striking certain paragraphs from the Application, permitting bifurcation of the hearing, permitting the respondents to conduct a criminal record check on the applicant and permitting a court reporter to record the hearing into this matter. The applicant had not filed a response to the RFOP and the time for him to do so had elapsed.

4The CAD included the following statement from the Tribunal’s decision in C.D. v. Wal-Mart Canada, 2010 HRTO 426 at para. 7:

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.

5The applicant was directed to immediately comply with the requirements under Rules 16 and 17, and the CAD indicated that if he had not done so within seven days, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

6The CAD, sent to both the applicant and his alternate contact, by email and regular mail, has not been returned as undeliverable and the applicant has not contacted the Tribunal or filed any documents or witness statements. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.