Hill v. Brantford Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 962

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Adam Hill

Applicant

-and-

Brantford Police Services Board and Corporation of the City of Brantford

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Corporation of the City of Brantford

Applicant

-and-

Adam Hill

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: July 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 962

Indexed As: Hill v. Brantford Police Services Board

1These are two Applications filed pursuant the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The first is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Code alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The second is an Application alleging a breach of settlement as between the Corporation of the City of Brantford (“City”) and Adam Hill the applicant in the first Application. The underlying legal question in this second Application is whether or not there is a settlement of the first Application as it relates to the City. A related issue of whether or not the City should be removed from the first Application for other reasons has previously been raised by the City. The respondent Brantford Police Services Board supports the City’s position on these issues.

2In a Case Assessment Direction issued to the parties on April 30, 2014, the Tribunal made a number of directions as follows:

a. In order to ensure the orderly adjudication of these Application the Tribunal will schedule a half day oral hearing to the parties submissions on the related issues of whether there is a settlement of the first Application as between the applicant and the City as well as the question of whether or not the City should be removed as a party to the first Application;

b. The Registrar will schedule a half day hearing to hear the parties submissions with respect to these issues. The parties will deliver and file any documents upon which they intend to rely, a list of their prospective witnesses if any, and a summary of their anticipated witness’ evidence no later than 21 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary hearing.

3A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for August 7, 2014. On June 4 and 6, 2014, the applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceeding (“Request”) seeking the production of documents. The applicant made no submissions in support of these Requests but asserts that they are relevant to the issues to be addressed on August 7, 2014. The respondents oppose the Requests on the basis that the documents are not relevant to the issues to be addressed in the preliminary hearing. The Brantford Police Association (“BPA”), which is no longer a party to these proceedings, was delivered the two Requests and takes the position that they are premature and should not be dealt with at this time.

4I agree with the positions taken by the respondents and the BPA. The issues to be addressed at the preliminary hearing are whether or not there was a settlement as between the applicant and the respondent City and whether in any event the City is properly a respondent. It is not clear how any of the documents, will-says and other things the applicant is seeking are arguably relevant to those issues as opposed to, potentially, the merits of the case.

Other Matters

5The applicant has previously argued that by disclosing the details of the disputed settlement between the parties, the respondent City has prejudiced his right to a fair hearing by any member of the Tribunal who has reviewed the respondent’s submissions. This issue has not been addressed to date. The applicant is directed to confirm whether or not he intends to pursue this issue and if he intends to do so provide written submissions on the point no later than seven days prior to the hearing. The respondents should be prepared to respond to this issue at the hearing if called upon to do so.

Orders and Directions

6The Requests for production of documents, will-says and other materials of the applicant are denied at this stage.

7If the applicant intends to argue that his right to a fair hearing has been prejudiced by the release of details of the disputed settlement, he will confirm whether or not he intends to pursue this issue and if he intends to do so deliver and file written submissions on the point no later than seven days prior to the hearing.

8I am not seized of this case.