Emmons v. Brantford Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1160

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Emmons

Applicant

-and-

Brantford Police Services Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: August 1, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1160

Indexed as: Emmons v. Brantford Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeffrey Emmons, Applicant

Self-represented

Brantford Police Services Board, Respondent

Seann McAleese, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is refusing to grant the applicant’s requests to direct the Chief of Police of Brantford to provide a statement in advance of the hearing of an alleged breach of settlement, and to direct the chair of the respondent Board to give evidence at the hearing.

2The applicant and the respondent had earlier settled an Application brought by the applicant that alleged a breach of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Minutes of Settlement include a confidentiality provision which reads:

The terms of this settlement shall be maintained in confidence by the Employee and the Employer, except as otherwise required by law and except that the parties shall communicate only that a mutually amicable resolution was achieved pursuant to which the Employee anticipates a future return to work.

3In order to give effect to the settlement the respondent had to ratify the Minutes of Settlement that were negotiated following the mediation that resulted in agreement between the parties.

4The Minutes of Settlement were ratified at an in-camera meeting of the respondent Board at the end of January, 2014. The then Deputy Chief of Police, who has since become the Chief, and the Board’s executive assistant were present at the in-camera meeting.

5In accordance with some of the terms of the Minutes of Settlement, on February 12, 2014, the respondent sent the applicant a very brief covering letter that enclosed a cheque payable to him, as well as a letter addressed to him from the then Chief of Police. The covering letter was signed by the executive assistant to the respondent Board.

6The executive assistant to the respondent Board is also the executive assistant to the Chief of Police.

7In order for the respondent to provide a cheque to the applicant it had earlier asked an employee of the City of Brantford who works in its human resources department to ensure the cheque was issued. This direction was given by the executive assistant. The employee was provided with a copy of the Minutes of Settlement and the respondent’s motion ratifying the Minutes of Settlement.

8The applicant alleges that the presence of the then Deputy Chief of Police and the executive assistant at the in-camera meeting of the respondent amounted to a breach of the confidentiality provision of the Minutes of Settlement. He also alleges that when the city employee was given a copy of the Minutes of Settlement, this constituted another breach of the confidentiality provision.

9The Tribunal will hold a hearing into whether there was a breach of settlement. In anticipation of that hearing, the applicant has requested that the Tribunal direct the current Chief of Police to provide a statement “on who he has told of the mediation/minutes or persons he knows is [sic] aware of the mediation/minutes”.

10I infer from this that, beyond the breaches of confidentiality which he has already alleged, the applicant believes that the Chief of Police may have further breached the confidentiality of the Minutes of Settlement. He does not say how or when these other supposed breaches occurred. As such, this appears to me to be no more than speculation on the part of the applicant.

11If the applicant believes there have been other alleged breaches of confidentiality, then it is up to him to first set out the particulars and then to bring the evidence in support of those allegations. If some of that evidence is in the hands of the respondent and the respondent refuses to disclose it, then that is the time to request an order from the Tribunal. This request is without merit and is denied.

12The second request asks the Tribunal to direct the respondent to have the chair of the respondent Board give evidence about “…who the Respondents have informed about the mediation/minutes”.

13This request is denied because, again, it seems to me that the applicant is speculating about possible other alleged breaches of confidentiality that might be within the knowledge of the chair of the respondent Board. He has not brought forward specific allegations to support his perception. If he is aware of a specific instance that he views as constituting a breach of the terms of settlement then he needs to say what it is and, ultimately, support the allegation with evidence. If some of that evidence is in the hands of the respondent and the respondent refuses to disclose it, then that is the time to request an order from the Tribunal. This request is also denied.

14Further to the Tribunal’s letter to the parties of May 15, 2014, which sets out timelines for providing each other and the Tribunal with hearing documents, witness lists and witness statements, the parties are directed to provide detailed witness statements. One purpose of requiring this is to enable the Tribunal to determine in advance whether the anticipated evidence of the witnesses is in fact relevant to the issues in dispute. If their evidence is not relevant then they will not be called to give evidence.

15A second purpose is to ensure in advance that the parties and the Tribunal have a clear understanding of what the witnesses will say. In this case the facts appear to be straightforward and appear to have taken place over a limited time frame, so it should not be difficult for the parties to set out comprehensive witness statements. If there are significant facts that are omitted from the witness statements, the Tribunal may not allow the witnesses to speak to matters that have not been disclosed in advance. If the applicant intends to give evidence, this direction applies to him and he is to file a witness statement.

order

16The requests to direct the Chief of Police of Brantford to provide a statement in advance of the hearing of an alleged breach of settlement, and to direct the chair of the respondent Board to give evidence at the hearing are both denied.

17The parties are directed to file detailed witness statements in accordance with the deadline set out the Tribunal’s letter of May 15, 2014.