McWilliam v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 704

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

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 24, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 704

Indexed as: McWilliam v. Toronto Police Services Board

APPEARANCES

Heather McWilliam, Applicant

Kate Hughes and Nadia Lambek, Counsel

Toronto Police Services Board and Angelo Costa, Respondents

Amandi Esonwanne, Counsel

Toronto Police Association, Intervenor

Anne Cumming, Counsel

1This Interim Decision confirms rulings that I made in the case management meeting that was held May 16, 2016.

2By Application dated September 3, 2014, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated and reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, she alleged that she was subject to a poisoned work environment, sexual harassment and sexual solicitation or advances. She also alleged that the organizational respondent did not adequately investigate her complaints and subjected her to reprisals for enforcing her rights under the Code. The respondents deny all of the applicant’s allegations.

Applicant’s Production request

3The applicant requested production of the following documents:

a. All emails between Colin Kay and Joe Dawson from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, concerning the applicant;

b. All emails, texts or notes between Ron Taverner and/or Colin Kay and/or Mike Ervick concerning the applicant’s sick leave from January 2014 to present;

c. All emails, texts or notes between Ron Taverner and Rob North regarding the applicant form January 2014 to present.

4At the case management meeting, I ruled that the following documents are arguably relevant to the issues in this case and must be produced:

a. All emails between Colin Kay and Joe Dawson from September1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, concerning the applicant;

b. All emails, texts or notes concerning the applicant’s sick leave that were exchanged by any of the following individuals Ron Taverner, Colin Kay and Mike Ervick between January 1, 2014 and September 3, 2014; and

c. All emails, texts or notes between Ron Taverner and Rob North regarding the applicant between January 2014 to September 3, 2014.

5The applicant submitted that correspondence between the date of the Application and the present day is arguably relevant because she intends to raise allegations of continuing reprisals. If the applicant wishes to allege reprisals occurring after the date on which she filed her Application, she must file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking permission to amend her Application. She must also provide particulars of the alleged reprisals she wishes to add to her Application. At present, I am not persuaded that any correspondence that occurred after the date of the Application is arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application.

Applicant’s Request for Documents relating to Disciplinary proceeding

6The applicant has requested that the respondent produce a copy of certain documents that were prepared as part of the Police Services Act disciplinary proceeding involving Staff Sargent Nolan. At the case management meeting, I directed the parties to make submissions on whether the following section of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 (“PSA”), applies to any of the documents requested by the applicant:

83 (8) No document prepared as the result of a complaint made under this Part is admissible in a civil proceeding, except at a hearing held under this Part.

7In making their submissions, the parties may wish to have regard to the Tribunal’s decision in K.M. v. Kodama, 2014 HRTO 526.

Expert to be called by Applicant

8At the case management meeting, the applicant’s counsel agreed to advise the respondents’ counsel of the name of the expert witness the applicant intends to call at the hearing. She also agreed to deliver a copy of the individual’s C.V. to the respondent’s counsel. In order to minimize the risk of any further delays in this case, I find it appropriate for the applicant to provide the name and C.V. for the expert by May 30, 2016.

order

9For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The respondents’ must produce the materials listed in para. 4 above to the applicant by May 30, 2016. I note that the respondent’s counsel stated at the case management meeting that he was “quite confident” his clients have produced any documents falling within the parameters of para. 4. However, he must provide this Interim Decision to his clients in order to ensure that all documents falling within the parameters of the items listed in para. 4 are produced to the applicant.

b. By May 30, 2016, the parties must file submissions on the issue of whether s. 83(8) of the PSA applies to the disciplinary proceeding documents requested by the applicant.

c. By May 30, 2016, the applicant must provide to the respondents’ counsel the name of the expert she intends to call at the hearing. She must also provide a copy of the expert’s CV to the respondent’s counsel.

d. If the applicant wishes to request permission to amend her Application to add allegations of reprisals that occurred after the date of her Application, she must do so as soon as possible.