Kinney v. Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority, 2014 HRTO 1389

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Kinney

Applicant

-and-

Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority and Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 18, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1389 Indexed as: Kinney v. Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michelle Kinney, Applicant Self-represented

Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority, Respondent John Saunders and Stephanie Jeronimo, Counsel

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 employment because of disability.

2The hearing of this matter is scheduled for February 4 and 5, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 16.1, the parties were required to deliver all arguably relevant documents in their possession by July 29, 2014. There is no dispute that the respondent sent its arguably relevant documents to the applicant by courier on July 29, 2014 and that, pursuant to Rule 1.22 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, these documents are deemed to have been received by the applicant two days later. Consequently, the delivery of the respondent’s arguably relevant documents was two days late.

3On August 22, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “Request”) in which she seeks an order preventing the respondent from calling or submitting evidence. The applicant’s submits that the respondent filed a false Statement of Delivery indicating that the respondent delivered its arguably relevant documents on time and because the respondent filed these documents after the deadline. The respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order on September 5, 2014. The respondent acknowledges that it delivered its arguably relevant documents two days late, but denied that it submitted a false Statement of Delivery. The respondent submitted that the minor delay in delivering its arguably relevant documents has not prejudiced the applicant and does not warrant the relief requested by the applicant.

Analysis and Decision

4The Request is denied. First, there is no merit to the applicant’s submission that the respondent filed a false Statement of Delivery. The Statement of Delivery filed by the respondent indicates that the respondent’s counsel sent a book of arguably relevant documents to the applicant by courier on July 29, 2014, not that the applicant received them on that date. Second, the respondent's delay in delivery was minor and the applicant has suffered no prejudice, which does not warrant the relief the applicant seeks.

Order

5The Request is denied.