Waterman v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 685

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jan Waterman

Applicant

-and-

The Chief of Police and Toronto Police Services Board, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Vanier Centre For Women)

Respondents

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: May 18, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 685

Indexed as: Waterman v. Toronto Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jan Waterman, Applicant

Khizer Anwar and Aditi Agnihotri, Counsel

The Chief of Police and Toronto Police Services Board, Respondents

Antonella Ceddia and Philip Chan, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Vanier Centre for Women), Respondent

Jordana Joseph, Counsel

Ontario Human Rights Commission, Intervenor

Reema Khawja and Insiya Essajee, Counsel

Introduction

1The hearing in this matter is scheduled for May 24-27, 2016.

2This Interim Decision addresses preliminary issues that have been raised by the parties.

Court Reporter

3On May 11, 2016, the respondents Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police (the “Police”) requested that a court reporter be permitted to record the hearing and that the Tribunal waive the requirement that they provide a transcript of the recording to the parties and to the Tribunal. In support of this request, the Police made the following submissions:

We believe it unfair to impose on us the high cost of having the transcript produced for all parties, as a condition of having the court reporter record in the first place. This is a very high cost to us. It is a high cost to impose on respondents who are funded by the public purse. It also places us in a position of potentially funding a judicial review application adverse to us. The cost of having the transcript produced for ourselves, all parties and the Tribunal is not one we would normally incur unless we decided to seek judicial review. If our clients order transcripts of the audio-recordings, we will certainly provide a copy of the transcript to the other parties and the Tribunal at that time, all at our expense.

4The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Recording Hearings states that while the Tribunal may permit a party to have a court reporter, the practice is discouraged because court reporters may lead to more formality, cause delay and many parties lack the financial resources to obtain a court reporter or order a transcript. The Practice Direction provides that when a court reporter is permitted, the party who obtains the court reporter must normally have transcripts of the recording produced and provided to the parties at its own expense. This requirement can be waived by the Tribunal.

5While there have been a few cases where the Tribunal has not required a party to provide a transcript when a court reporter records the hearing, the Tribunal’s general practice is to require transcripts be produced and provided to the parties. For example, see: A.B. v. Western University, 2015 HRTO 354; Adani v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1036; and Pieters v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1863.

6I have no difficulty allowing a court reporter to record this hearing. This will provide the Tribunal and the parties with the most accurate record of the evidence.

7The Police must provide transcripts, at their expense, to the Tribunal and the other parties, as provided for in the Practice Direction on Recording Hearings. These transcripts must be provided prior to final argument. This will ensure that the parties and the Tribunal have access to the most complete record of the evidence when making final argument. It will also ensure that I have the best record of the evidence when writing the decision. The transcripts will form part of the record of proceeding pursuant to section 20 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22.

8In my view, if hearings are recorded, everyone should have access to the most accurate record of the hearing. It is somewhat unfair to ask the parties and the Tribunal to rely on their own notes when a better record is available. It also strikes me as unfair to save the best record of the hearing for judicial review, which the Police acknowledge may occur.

Evidence of Kyle Kirkup

9The respondents have advised that they do not object to the expert evidence of Kyle Kirkup, called by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Evidence of Rupert Raj

10The respondents have advised that they do object to having Rupert Raj, called by the applicant, qualified as an expert in this proceeding. I will hear submissions on this issue at the hearing.

11Any further preliminary issues will be dealt with at the commencement of the hearing next week.

order

12The request of the Police to have the hearing transcribed by a court reporter, at their expense, is allowed. The Police must provide transcripts, at their expense, to the other parties and the Tribunal, prior to final argument being made. These transcripts will form part of the record of proceedings in this matter.