HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Robert King
Complainant
-and-
Vera Bura and the Estate of Matthew Bura
by his Estate Trustee, Vera Bura
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Steven J. Faughnan
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
400 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 1T7
Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946
TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168
APPEARANCES
Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Amyn Hadibhai, Counsel
) Anita Balakrisna, Student-at- ) Law
Robert King, Complainant ) On his own behalf
Vera Bura and the Estate of Matthew Bura ) Paul Chumak, Michael Figol
by his Estate Trustee, Vera Bura, ) and Vera Bura
Respondents )
INTRODUCTION
1In his Complaint dated April 10, 2001 (the “Complaint”) the Complainant states that he is a Black person and alleges that he was discriminated against and harassed in his accommodation because of his race and colour. Vera Bura was named as a personal Respondent and acts as estate trustee for the estate of her late brother Matthew Bura, who had also been named as a personal Respondent in the Complaint. As will be set out in more detail below, at various times counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondents, the last of which advised that as he had not been retained, he would not be appearing for the Respondents at the hearing. The proceeding ultimately continued in the absence of the Respondents.
DECISION
2The Complaint is allowed. The Tribunal’s remedial Order is set out at the end of this Decision.
The Proceeding to date
3This proceeding began with the Initial Telephone Conference Call held on October 31, 2002. Paul Chumak appeared on the call as solicitor for the Respondents. As set out in a letter from the Tribunal dated November 5, 2002, during the call the parties requested a voluntary mediation and asked that hearing dates not be set until after the mediation.
4As the matter did not resolve at mediation, dates for the exchange of pleadings were set and a pre-hearing telephone conference call was scheduled for April 24, 2003. Mr. Chumak appeared on behalf of the Respondents on the call and was obstreperous and confrontational. Although his stated goal was to shorten the time that he had to spend on the call, his conduct only prolonged it. Ultimately, he decided to unilaterally end his participation on the call, which continued in his absence. The matters determined at the conference call were set out in a letter dated April 30, 2003. As set out in the letter, as there was no copy of the Respondents’ Response under Rule 36 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice