Rill v. Kashruth Council of Canada, 2008 HRTO 100

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Warren Rill

Applicant

-and-

Kashruth Council of Canada, Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP, Mordichai Levin, and Joel Richler

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: September 23, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 100

Indexed as: Rill v. Kashruth Council of Canada

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 314-8419 / Fax (416) 314-8743 / Toll free 1-866-598-0322 TTY (416) 314-2379 / (toll free) 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1This is an Application received September 5, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The purpose of this decision is to address the applicant's request for summonses and to issue case management directions.

Background

3The original complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") was self-drafted and given two Commission file numbers. For convenience, I will refer to the LHOR-7D6Q2E complaint naming the Kashruth Council of Canada and Rabbi Mordichai Levin as respondents as the "Kashruth complaint" and the LHOR-7DLR8R complaint naming Joel Richler and Blake, Cassels & Graydon, LLP as respondents as the "Blakes complaint". Both complaints (contained in a single complaint form) contain identical allegations that, on February 27, 2008, the respondents refused to provide the applicant with an application to apply to be a kosher caterer.

4On September 5, 2008 the applicant filed a section 53(3) application enclosing the original Commission complaint. At the same time, the applicant requested a mediation date in September 2008 on the basis that he planned to leave the country after the end of September for the "winter months."

5On September 11, 2008, counsel for the respondents on the Kashruth complaint filed a response, requesting, among other things, that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the complaint did not disclose any facts which could give rise to a breach under the Code.

6On September 15, 2008 the Tribunal Registrar sent the parties a letter confirming receipt of the Application and assigning it a Tribunal file number of T-0200-08. The letter also stated that, in light of the applicant's anticipated absence from the country after September 2008, the Registrar's office would contact the parties to see if a date in September 2008 could be found to hear the respondents' request to dismiss the Application.

7The parties to the Kashruth complaint were available on September 29, 2008. Accordingly, on September 17, 2008, the Tribunal Registrar wrote to advise that a case resolution conference was scheduled for September 29, 2008 for the purpose of hearing the respondents' request to dismiss the Application.

8On September 16, 2008, counsel for the respondents on the Blakes complaint filed their response to the Application, requesting, among other things, that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the allegations set out in the complaint did not support a finding of the violation of the Code.

9It appears to the Tribunal that is appropriate to deal with both complaints under Tribunal application T-0200-08. Accordingly, the case resolution conference scheduled for September 29, 2008 will hear the respondents' request to dismiss the Application on the basis that the complaints on which it is grounded do not disclose any facts which could give rise to a violation of the Code.

Request for Summonses

10On September 17, 2008 the applicant requested the Tribunal issue summonses to six individuals for the purpose of the September 29, 2008 case resolution conference. The respondents in the Kashruth complaint opposed the request.

11In determining a request to dismiss an application on the basis that the facts alleged do not disclose a breach of the Code, the Tribunal will assume that the facts set out in the applicant's original Commission complaints are true. There is no need for the applicant to call evidence to establish the truth of those allegations.

12Thus, it appears to the Tribunal that the evidence of the six witnesses to be summonsed by the applicant is not relevant to this hearing. Therefore the request for the summons is denied.

13The requests to dismiss the Application will be heard in person at a case resolution conference scheduled for September 29, 2008.