Lynn Hudson v. Hamilton Police Association, 2010 CanLII 44053

1This decision replaces the one issued July 19, 2010, which contained a typographical error.

2We held a hearing into this matter on June 30, 2010 to hear the final arguments of the responding party and the reply arguments of the applicant.

3The applicant was not prepared at the time to reply to all of the responding party’s arguments, and, on consent, she was permitted to file written reply submissions on those arguments by July 16, 2010.

4The Tribunal received submissions from the applicant by facsimile transmission on July 6 and July 12, 2010. It is not apparent on the face of these documents that copies were provided to the responding party. If she has not already done so, therefore, the applicant is directed to send copies of those submissions to counsel for the responding party.

5The July 12, 2010 submissions are not a reply to the responding party’s arguments. Rather, they contain certain allegations about the propriety of the conduct of the hearing. Such allegations are normally addressed by the panel. If we think it necessary to direct the responding party to file any submissions on these issues, we will issue a further decision specifically directing it to do so.