McWilliam v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2015 HRTO 594

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Heather McWilliam Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board and Angelo Costa Respondents

-and-

Toronto Police Association Intervener

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: May 7, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 594 Indexed as: McWilliam v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Heather McWilliam, Applicant Kate Hughes, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board, Respondent Heather Crisp, Counsel

Angelo Costa, Respondent Maureen Salama, Counsel

Toronto Police Association, Intervener Anne Cumming, 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").

2On October 20, 2014, the Tribunal granted the Toronto Police Association status as an intervener in this Application.

3This Application was deferred by the Tribunal on consent December 16, 2014, pending the conclusion of an investigation by the Special Investigations Unit.

4Responses to the Application had not been filed at the time that the Tribunal deferred the Application.

5The applicant has been notified that the Special Investigations Unit has completed its investigation. The applicant has served the respondents and filed with the Tribunal a Request to Reactivate the Application.

6The corporate respondent does not oppose the Request to reactivate but seeks an extension of time to file its Response. Peel Regional Police Services conducted part of the investigation and was to provide its report by April 30, 2015. The corporate respondent wishes to file its Response 21 days after the receipt of the Peel Regional Police Services investigation report. The corporate respondent argues that it needs to have a completed report of investigations into the allegations raised in the Application before it can file a complete Response.

7The applicant opposes the request. She argues that the corporate respondent has had 8 months to investigate the allegations and there is no reason why the investigation could not have been completed in a timely way.

8The individual respondent has not responded to either the request to reactivate or the request for an extension of time to file a Response.

REACTIVATION

9Given that the Special Investigations Unit has completed their investigations and reports, the Application is reactivated.

EXTENSION OF TIME

10It is not necessary for the Tribunal to grant the respondents an extension of time to file their Responses. The Application was deferred by the Tribunal prior to filing of the Responses. Rule 8 applies from the date of reactivation of the Application. The respondents shall file their Responses within 35 days of the date of the Interim Order.

ORDER

11The Tribunal makes the following Orders:

a. This Application is reactivated.

b. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall file their Response(s) (Form 2) to the Application with the Tribunal.

12I am not seized.