Hassell v. United Church of Canada Montreal and Ottawa Conference, 2013 HRTO 903

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Desmond Hassell Applicant

-and-

United Church of Canada Montreal & Ottawa Conference Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: May 24, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 903 Indexed as: Hassell v. United Church of Canada Montreal and Ottawa Conference

Appearances

Desmond Hassell, Applicant ) John Westdal, Counsel

United Church of Canada ) Montreal & Ottawa Conference, ) Gary Boyd, Counsel and Ottawa Presbytery of the ) United Church of Canada, Respondents )

1The hearing into this matter concluded on August 7, 2012. Shortly after the hearing, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal asking for an opportunity to make additional submissions in relation to the applicant’s allegations against Ottawa Presbytery of the United Church of Canada (“Ottawa Presbytery”).

2The parties participated in oral submissions on May 24, 2013 on the question of whether the hearing should be re-opened to permit the applicant to advance allegations against Ottawa Presbytery.

3At the conclusion of the submissions, I gave the following oral reasons for my decision not to re-open the hearing:

The parties agree that the applicant’s allegations against Presbytery are out of time unless I find that they constitute a series of events, the last of which is represented by the letter of Dr. Bailey dated May 8, 2008. The letter contains Dr. Bailey’s response to a claim filed by the applicant against him personally with Presbytery.

The applicant alleges that the letter is itself an act of discrimination because it goes beyond simply responding to the applicant’s allegations. The applicant alleges that Dr. Bailey’s description of him in the letter of May 8, 2008 portrays him as a “male bully” which is the essence of his Application to the Tribunal. The applicant also alleges that Dr. Bailey is a member of Presbytery, and therefore Presbytery is deemed liable for his conduct.

I find that the letter of May 8, 2008 represents Dr. Bailey’s response to the allegations made against him personally. I find that the comments about the applicant in that letter do not constitute an act of discrimination, but rather a description of the events which occurred in 2006, from Dr. Bailey’s perspective.

Given this finding, it is not necessary for me to determine the nature of the relationship between Dr. Bailey and Presbytery.

Accordingly, I will not exercise my discretion to re-open the hearing and permit the applicant to proceed in his allegations against Presbytery.

4The parties will advise the Tribunal within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision whether they are interested in returning to mediation in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule on Mediation/Adjudication.