HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sheri-Lyn Bingham
Applicant
-and-
York Regional Police and The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Bingham v. York Regional Police
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sheri-Lyn Bingham, Applicant
Jeffrey Radnoff, Counsel
York Regional Police and The Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, Respondents
Stephen Maio, Counsel
1The hearing of this matter scheduled for July 16-17, 2015. It will proceed as scheduled. Given the fact that the parties have filed two Requests for Orders During Proceedings (“RFOP”) shortly before the hearing. This Interim Decision provides only a bottom line ruling. More comprehensive reasons will be provided in my Decision on the merits.
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
2In its Form 11 Response, the respondents stated that they are in the process of producing the medical documents requested by the Applicant in her RFOP. The respondents are ordered to produce the requested documents by Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5 PM.
Witness Statement for Phil Shrewsberry-Gee
3The applicant should have produced this witness statement by the deadline for the production of witness statements and, in any event, well before the date on which it was filed. Having said this, any prejudice caused to the respondents can be cured by the timing in which evidence is called in the hearing. Two days are currently scheduled for the hearing. The applicant will testify first and be cross-examined. Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee will testify second and be cross-examined.
4At the outset of the hearing, I will discuss with the parties the timing of the evidence from the respondents’ witnesses. In my view, it would be appropriate to set continuation dates to hear evidence from the respondents’ witnesses. However, the respondents should be prepared to cross-examine Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee on either the July 16 or 17, 2015.
5The applicant is ordered to provide the particulars relating to Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee’s testimony requested by the respondents by Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5 PM.
6I note that I am not persuaded of the relevance of the intended testimony from Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee relating to the different practices as between the respondents’ bargaining units when it comes to maintaining pre-injury pay when an employee is being accommodated. An issue before the Tribunal is whether the law requires that an employee be paid at their pre-injury rate when being accommodated. That is a legal issue for this Tribunal to decide and on which Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee has no expertise. Therefore, I do not consider his testimony as to the differences between the respondent’s bargaining units on this issue to be relevant.
7However, I find Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee’s intended testimony to be relevant in relation to: the respondents’ practices in relation to providing temporary vs. permanent accommodations for employees with disabilities, whether the union would impede permanent accommodation arrangements, and the types of positions that become available as referenced in para. 11 of his witness statement.
8Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee is not a party to this Application and therefore I do not consider it appropriate to order him to produce all arguably relevant documents in his possession or control as requested by the respondents.
ORDER
9The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The respondents are ordered to produce the documents requested in the applicant’s RFOP by Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5 PM. They must also file a copy with the Tribunal by that same time.
b. The applicant is ordered to provide the respondents with the particulars requested in the respondents’ RFOP by Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5 PM. She must also file a copy with the Tribunal by that same time.
c. The Tribunal will discuss with the parties the parameters of Mr. Shrewsberry-Gee’s permitted evidence and the timing of the respondents’ evidence at the outset of the hearing on Thursday
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of July, 2015.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair