Ontario Human Rights Commission v. 571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 2007 HRTO 10

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Complainant/Commission

-and-

571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac Tavern, Vladimir (aka Walter) Perin Sr., Walter Perin Jr.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: March 19, 2007

Citation: 2007 HRTO 10

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 E-mail hrto.registrar@jus.gov.on.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1The Tribunal is in receipt of a Notice of Motion from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“OHRC”) and Hart Schwartz, the Director of Legal Services of the OHRC. The Notice of Motion seeks certain relief with respect to the Tribunal's Interim Decision dated January 22, 2007. The request for relief is predicated on the concern that the January 22, 2007 decision could be understood as making findings of fact adverse to the OHRC and Hart Schwartz and further that the reference to a human rights complaint filed against Mr. Schwartz in that decision constitutes an invasion of his right to personal privacy. Detailed written submissions were filed in support of the motion.

2The January 22, 2007 decision addressed certain procedural issues arising from a motion brought by Ms. Glover seeking to be added as a party Complainant to these proceedings, seeking to have the Commission and Mr. Schwartz added as Respondents to these proceedings and seeking certain remedies against the Commission and Mr. Schwartz. In support of her motion Ms. Glover alleged certain facts, including the fact that she had filed a human rights complaint against the OHRC and Mr. Schwartz.

3Decisions of the Tribunal are a matter of public record. The reasons of the January 22, 2007 decision referred to Ms. Glover's allegations for the purposes of disposing of certain of her remedial requests, including the requests that the Commission and Mr. Schwartz be added as responding parties to this proceeding and the other remedial requests relating to the Commission and Mr. Schwartz, and giving procedural directions with respect to the others. It did not make findings of fact. It does not give rise to any adverse inference with respect to the conduct of the OHRC or its Director of Legal Services, Hart Schwartz.

4Accordingly, the motion brought on behalf of the OHRC and Hart Schwartz is dismissed.