Baine v. York Regional Police, 2015 HRTO 1167

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Baine

Applicant

-and-

York Regional Police

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: September 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1167

Indexed as: Baine v. York Regional Police

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Baine, Applicant

Self-represented

York Regional Police, Respondent

Stephen Maio, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application and his request for an extension of time to disclose his arguably relevant documents. It also addresses the status of the applicant’s union in relation to this matter.

2In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, he alleged that the respondent fails to acknowledge the permanent nature of his disability-related restrictions and has failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations for these restrictions.

REquest to amend application

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed in March 2015, the applicant sought to amend the Application to add a further incident of alleged discrimination which occurred after he filed his Application. The incident involves the respondent’s suspension of the applicant’s Personal Access Code (“PAC”). He also sought to add information or allegations relating to the respondent’s treatment of certain comments he had made in the workplace.

4The respondent opposed the applicant’s request on the basis that the proposed amendment stands no reasonable prospect of success and would delay and lengthen the proceeding.

5The hearing of this Application is scheduled to take place on December 14-15, 2015. The deadline for the disclosure of the parties’ arguably relevant documents was August 18, 2015. The Tribunal granted the parties’ request to extend this deadline to September 30, 2015.

Analysis

6In determining requests to amend applications, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926, 2009 HRTO 926.

7Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. I do not agree with the respondents that the new allegations raised by the applicant have no reasonable prospect of success. I also am not persuaded that hearing the allegation will unduly lengthen or complicate the hearing.

8For the reasons set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend his Application. The respondent will be provided with the right to file an amended Response to address the amendment to the Application.

Production request

9By RFOP dated August 11, 2015, the applicant requested an extension of time for the disclosure of his arguably relevant documents because he has filed a freedom of information request to obtain certain documents from the respondent.

10The applicant should take note that, instead of filing his freedom of information request, he could have requested production of the documents by filing a Form 10 RFOP with the Tribunal. If the respondent does not produce the documents requested by the applicant as part of its arguably relevant documents, the applicant may file a Form 10 RFOP seeking production of the documents.

11In my view, it is not appropriate to extend the deadline for the parties’ disclosure of arguably relevant documents in the circumstances of this case. If the respondent does not disclose to the applicant the documents he sought in his freedom of information request as part of its arguably relevant documents, the applicant may file a Form 10 RFOP seeking an order from the Tribunal requiring the respondent to produce the documents in question.

12In his RFOP, the applicant seeks to have the York Regional Police Association removed from this matter, as it has indicated that it is not representing him. When an applicant is represented by a union, the Tribunal’s regular practice is to name the union as an “affected party”. In this case, the applicant’s union wrote to the Tribunal to advise that it is not representing the applicant and to ask that the Tribunal correspond with the applicant directly. The union has not indicated a wish to continue receiving copies of correspondence relating to this proceeding. Therefore, the Tribunal will remove them as an affected party.

Orders

13For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended to add the contents of the Applicant’s March 19, 2015 RFOP.

b. If the respondent wishes to amend their Response to address the amendments, it may do so within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may file a Reply to any amendments made to the Response within 14 days of receiving the respondent’s amended Response.

c. The applicant’s request for an extension of time to make his disclosure of arguably relevant documents is denied.

d. The Tribunal will remove the applicant’s union as an affected party and cease sending it copies of correspondence relating to the Application.

14I am not seized.