Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc. et al., 2007 CanLII 59346

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Martha Glover

Complainant

• and -

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Commission

• and-

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

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michael Gottheil

Date: December 20, 2007

Citation: 2008 HRTO 4

Indexed as: Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc. et al.

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

1On December 11, 2007, I issued a decision (unreported) setting out procedural directions in regard to several requests for preliminary orders brought by the Complainant Martha Glover. I ordered that a teleconference hearing be held, at which Ms. Glover must provide the factual and legal basis as to why the Tribunal should entertain two of the requests, which appear to be identical to requests previously made and determined in these proceedings. I also ordered Ms. Glover to particularize the remedial relief being sought for the alleged abuse of process.

2The Registrar contacted the parties to set a date for the teleconference hearing. Counsel for Ms. Glover responded indicating that the earliest dates she was available was April 1, 2 or 3, 2008. Counsel for the Commission objects to the dates proposed by Ms. Glover and asks the Tribunal to set an earlier date for the teleconference hearing.

3The parties cannot agree on a date for the teleconference. As a result, the Tribunal must deal with this issue.

4The two complaints before me involve a claim that the Respondents breached a settlement of an earlier complaint that was filed by Ms. Glover in October 2001. That earlier complaint was referred to the Tribunal on February 15, 2005. A settlement was entered into on March 1, 2006.

5Subsequent to the settlement, both the Commission and Ms. Glover attempted to reopen the 2001 complaint. By decision dated May 18, 2006 (2006 HRTO 14), I ruled that they were not entitled to do so, as the settlement reached on March 1, 2006 was final and binding on all the parties. I also stated that if the Commission referred a breach of settlement complaint, the Tribunal would expedite the processing of that new complaint.

6On December 1, 2006, the Commission referred a Commission-initiated complaint dated October 26, 2006. This new complaint dealt with the alleged breach of the March 2006 settlement. Ms. Glover was not made a co-complainant in that complaint, and there was no indication in the referral letter to the Tribunal that Ms. Glover had been given notice of the referral.

7On December 11, 2006, the Tribunal received a Notice of Motion from Ms. Glover. Parts of that motion were disposed of by decision dated January 22, 2007 (2007 HRTO 3). I also ordered submissions from the parties in respect of other aspects of the motion.

8Subsequently, the Commission and its Director of Legal Services brought a motion claiming that my decision dated January 22, 2007 was prejudicial to their interests, and requesting that I amend the decision. That motion was disposed of by decision dated March 19, 2007 (2007 HRTO 10).

9On April 10, 2007, a hearing was held to deal with the motion brought by Ms. Glover in December 2006. Ms. Glover, the Commission and the Director of Legal Services all raised preliminary and procedural issues related to Ms. Glover’s motion. I provided directions to the parties for the filing of submissions on the issues raised at the hearing. The Commission requested a delay in filing its submissions. Ms. Glover objected. The request was denied.

10On August 28, 2007, the Commission referred a breach of settlement complaint that had been filed by Ms. Glover on October 18, 2006. An Initial Conference Call was held on September 4, 2007, at which time I ordered that the two breach of settlement Complaints be joined, and determined that the outstanding issue of Ms. Glover’s status as a complainant was moot. Counsel for Ms. Glover indicated that she wished to raise additional preliminary requests, and I provided directions for the filing of the requests. Counsel for Ms. Glover made two requests for extensions of time; the first was granted and the second was denied. The submissions were received on November 28, 2007.

DECISION

11Section 2 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended (“the SPPA”), provides:

This Act, and any rule made by a tribunal under subsection 17.1 (4) or section 25.1, shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits. (emphasis added)

12The two Complaints now before me are breach of settlement complaints. Both Complaints allege a breach of a settlement that was entered into on March 1, 2006 in relation to a complaint that was filed in October 2001. Without placing responsibility on any particular party, to suggest that the conduct of this litigation has been in accordance with Section 2 of the SPPA, would indeed be stretching the meaning of just, expeditious and cost-effective.

13It is apparent from the various submissions, allegations and positions of the parties that there is considerable acrimony and hostility, as well as suggestions of bad faith. I express no view on the legitimacy of those feelings or perceptions.

14However, this had led to a litigation strategy that has delayed and derailed the resolution of these breach of settlement Complaints. And on that matter, the Tribunal does express a view – the delay is unacceptable and is inconsistent with both the Tribunal’s adjudicative approach and the objects of the Human Rights Code.

15As a result of the parties’ inability to agree on a date for the teleconference hearing, the Tribunal will set a date peremptorily. I will also set a date for the hearing of the merits of these complaints.

16The teleconference hearing to deal with the issues set out in my December 11, 2007 decision will take place on January 31, 2008, commencing at 10:00 am. The hearing on the merits of the two breach of settlement Complaints shall take place on March 3, 2008, commencing at 10:00 am, and continuing day to day until the matter is complete.