Stock v. Windsor Police Service, 2015 HRTO 1171

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mark Stock

Applicant

-and-

Windsor Police Service

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: September 3, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1171

Indexed as: Stock v. Windsor Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mark Stock, Applicant

Self-represented

Windsor Police Service, Respondent

David Amyot, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2A hearing in this matter is set for December 5, 2015.

3In a July 28, 2015 Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP"), the respondent requests that the Application be deferred pending completion of an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit ("SIU").

4The applicant opposes deferral.

Submissions

5The respondent advises that the applicant was suspended with pay on April 11, 2015 because of the SIU investigation.

6It submits that because the applicant's allegations deal with the scheduling of his shifts as they relate to his child care responsibilities, the Application is moot at this point because the applicant is off work and as such is being accommodated.

7It submits that the investigation likely will not be complete by the December 5, 2015 hearing date. It further submits that the investigation may result in criminal charges, which would result in the applicant's remaining off work thereby continuing to be accommodated with respect to his child care responsibilities

8The applicant opposes deferral of the Application, and submits that the respondent has no basis on which it can conclude that the SIU will not have completed its investigation by the hearing date.

9He further submits that once the investigation is complete, his allegations no longer are moot, and if the respondent succeeds in its request to defer the Application, the applicant may then have to wait several months until the hearing is rescheduled.

Analysis and Decision

10The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure).

11One of the purposes of deferral is to avoid two simultaneous proceedings that may result in conflicting findings of fact or determinations.

12While the respondent argues the doctrine of mootness, and the Tribunal in the past has relied on this doctrine in refusing to consider complaints because of events that occurred subsequent to the filing of the Application, which rendered the issues moot (see, for example: Hansen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 608 and Pennington v. Peterborough (City), 2012 HRTO 1851), I find it inapplicable in this case.

13The applicant argues in the Application he was discriminated against on the basis of family status at a particular point in time. Subsequent events do not change those allegations, and a remedy is sought in respect of those. Any SIU investigation is irrelevant to the issue of whether this hearing should proceed as scheduled.

14The respondent also has requested that it be relieved of its obligation to provide its arguably relevant documents by July 31, 2015. There is no reason to grant this request.

Order

15The respondent's Request to Defer is denied.

16By September 15, 2015, the parties shall deliver to each other their arguably relevant documents and file with the Tribunal a Form 23 Statement of Delivery.

17The parties shall comply with the requirement in the Notice of Hearing to deliver and file the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing by October 27, 2015.