Savoy v. Aya Kitchens & Baths Ltd., 2007 HRTO 25

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patricia Savoy

Complainant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

-and-

Aya Kitchens & Baths Ltd., Tim Hoang, and Hugh Wahab

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 10, 2007

Citation: 2007 HRTO 25

Indexed as: Savoy v. Aya Kitchens & Baths Ltd.

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@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND ISSUES

1This Interim Decision addresses requests received in correspondence received from counsel for the Respondents.

2This complaint was referred to the Tribunal by the Commission and received on July 4, 2007. By letter dated July 9, 2007, the Tribunal sent its standard letter to the parties or their representatives, including counsel for the Respondents, scheduling the Initial Conference Call for July 27, 2007 at 1:30 PM. pursuant to Rules 32-34 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice. The letter contained the following:

Important – If you do NOT Participate in the Initial Conference Call

It is very important for you to participate in this call. If you are not available for the conference call, either personally or through your legal counsel or another representative, the call may proceed without your participation. You (or your representative) will receive a memorandum setting out the matters discussed during the call. [underlining in original]

3The letter also set out that the call could be rescheduled to an earlier date, provided that the consent of all parties was obtained, the new date was confirmed with the Tribunal’s office as convenient to the Tribunal, and the request was submitted in writing to the Tribunal as soon as possible so that the call arrangements could be changed. The letter also made clear that a representative could be appointed to take the call in any party’s place, so long as the representative had counsel or the party’s schedule information.

4On July 9, 2007, counsel for the Respondents wrote to the Registrar (although the letter was addressed to the “Ontario Human Rights Commission”) as follows:

Further to your letter of today’s date please be advised that I am on holidays that week. I am available anytime during the week of August 13, 2007.

5Following a conversation with a Tribunal staff member, counsel for the Respondents sent the following letter dated July 10, 2007:

I am writing to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning wherein you advised that you will not re-schedule the conference call and that you will not clear hearing dates with me.

6The Registrar then sent a letter to the parties addressed as follows:

The Tribunal understands from phone calls and correspondence the latter on July 9 and 10, 2007, that Counsel for the Respondent, Robert K. Stephenson is seeking to have the Initial Conference Call (ICC) rescheduled.

The Tribunal has advised Mr. Stephenson, by phone, to arrange a mutually convenient date and time with the other parties and to advise the Tribunal so that this matter can be rescheduled, otherwise the ICC will proceed on July 27, 2007.

7The Tribunal received no communication requesting a rescheduling of the ICC and it proceeded as scheduled. The only representative or party in attendance was counsel for the Commission, who advised that she had received authorization to agree to matters on the Complainant’s behalf. She also indicated that through communication with counsel for the Respondents, she understood that he would not attend on the call. Pleading and disclosure dates were set during the call in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules. The letter indicated that if the Respondent wished to agree to fast track mediation the pleading dates would be adjourned. The results of the call were confirmed in a letter to the parties from the Registrar. The letter also included copies of the Respondent’s letters to the Tribunal, which had not been copied to the Commission or the Complainant as required by Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s rules.

8On August 8, 2007 the Tribunal received correspondence from counsel for the Respondents, again addressed to the “Ontario Human Rights Commission”. It includes the following:

• The Respondent renews a request for full disclosure made to counsel for the Commission.
• He confirms that he has not been provided with contact information for the Complainant and that he did not receive contact information for counsel for the Commission until July 10.
• “Finally, I have not received a single piece of correspondence or had any contact with Ms. Savoy. I assume that you, Ms. Singer and Ms. Pike have had repeated contact with her. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting copies and/or details of all such correspondence.”

DECISION

9The Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body, independent from the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”). The Tribunal hears and decides cases referred to it by the Commission under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (“Code”). Its proceedings are governed by Rules of Practice made pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. The Commission is a party to the Tribunal proceeding pursuant to s. 39(2) of the Code.

10The Tribunal issues a Notice of Initial Conference Call upon receipt of a referral from the Commission pursuant to Rule 32. Among other reasons, as a result of its obligation under s. 39 (1) of the Code, to commence a hearing within thirty days of the referral, the Tribunal does not reschedule ICCs without the written consent of all parties. It accommodates parties’ and counsel’s schedules by allowing such rescheduling, and by allowing a representative to attend on the call.

11Regarding the Respondents’ request for disclosure, this is governed by Rules 41-48 of the Rules of Practice. As determined during the Initial Conference Call, the Complainant and Commission must provide disclosure and their pleadings by September 17, 2007 and the Respondents must provide disclosure and their pleadings by November 2, 2007. Accordingly, disclosure has already been ordered.

12The provision of the Complainant’s address for service where a Complainant is self-represented is normally a matter that is dealt with on the Initial Conference Call or through discussions between counsel. However, in the circumstances, the Commission is directed to provide the Respondents’ counsel with the address at which the Complainant wishes to receive service by August 17, 2007.

13With regard to the Respondents’ final request, the Tribunal does not engage in “repeated contact” with parties that is unknown to the other parties; all correspondence is sent to all parties, and contact other than routine calls to the Registrar and mediations, takes place with all parties in attendance. The Tribunal’s only correspondence with the Complainant has been through letters addressed to all parties. The Respondents have not advised the Tribunal who “Ms. Singer” is. If she was involved in the Commission’s investigation, the investigation file must be disclosed as part of the Commission’s disclosure obligations, to the extent required by the jurisprudence. Ms. Pike is counsel to the Commission, a party in this proceeding, and is not obliged to disclose her correspondence or other communications with the Complainant, another party.

ORDER

14The Commission is directed to provide the Respondents’ counsel with the address at which the Complainant wishes to receive service by August 17, 2007. The Respondents’ other requests are dismissed. I am not seized.