HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Delano Brown
Complainant
-and-
Trebas Institute Ontario Inc.
George Hood, Jason Schreiner, Ron Brandt, Tim Bulmar
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Susan Serena
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 400 University Avenue, 7^th^ 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 E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca Website www.hrto.ca
INTRODUCTION
1This proceeding relates to a complaint filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) by the complainant, Delano Brown, (the “complainant” or “Brown”) against the responding parties Trebas Institute Ontario Inc., (“Trebas”), George Hood, Jason Schreiner, Ron Brandt (“Brandt”) and Tim Bulmar.
2On May 4, 2006, the Tribunal received a request from the Respondent Trebas Institute to adjourn the hearing dates scheduled for May 8, 9 and the morning of May 10, 2006 because this party’s advisor could not locate a hotel room in Toronto. Although the Tribunal was loath to grant this request because these dates had been previously arranged on consent of all the parties and the request for an adjournment was only made at the last minute, in view of the fact that both the complainant and Commission have indicated that they are prepared to consent to the adjournment, the hearing dates previously scheduled for May 8, 9 and 10 are hereby cancelled. The hearing in this matter will commence on May 15, 2006 and continue on May 16, 2006.
3On April 6, 2006 the Tribunal issued a decision directing the parties produce certain documents forthwith.
4By letter dated May 4, 2006, the Commission advised the Tribunal that the Respondents had not produced the documents they had been directed to produce or advised the Commission that the documents do not exist. The Commission asks the Tribunal to direct the Respondents to comply with the production order by May 11, 2006, failing which the Respondents be barred from introducing any documents not disclosed to the Commission and the Complainant.
5The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice require each party to produce those documents in their possession that are relevant to the issues in dispute. Further, Rule 48 provides as follows:
- Where a party fails to comply with these Rules, or with an order for disclosure or production, the panel may take any action it considers appropriate. This may include refusing to allow a party to introduce evidence at the hearing that was not disclosed or produced or by placing conditions on the use of such evidence.
6The Respondents are put on notice that if they do not comply with the Tribunal’s decision dated April 6, 2006 and produce all outstanding documents to the Commission and the complainant by Thursday May 11, 2006, the Tribunal will entertain the Commission’s motion to bar the Respondents from introducing any documents not disclosed as permitted by Rule 48.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of May, 2006.
“Signed By”
Susan Serena
Member