Jogendra v. Ontario (Attorney-General), 2008 HRTO 153

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Regis Jogendra Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Michael Bryant, Brian Lennox and Donald Ebbs Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Regis Jogendra Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General and Kenneth L. Campbell Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: October 14, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 153 Indexed as: Jogendra v. Ontario (Attorney-General)

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

INTRODUCTION

1These are two Applications filed under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code") on July 24, 2008. The Application against the Ministry of the Attorney General, Michael Bryant, Brian Lennox and Donald Ebbs was assigned Tribunal File No. T-0026-08. The Application against the Ministry of the Attorney General and Kenneth Campbell was assigned Tribunal File No. T-0027-08. The corporate respondent in both applications was named as the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Tribunal has corrected this to properly identify the corporate respondent as Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney-General and has amended the style of cause accordingly.

2In Application No. T-0026-08, the applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, alleges that the respondents' failure to assign him a full-time presiding appointment amounted to discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin and race (the "Progression Application"). The respondents filed their Response on August 18, 2008. Mediation, held September 26, 2008, was unsuccessful and the Tribunal set a date for a case resolution hearing to hear various preliminary matters raised by both parties.

3In Application No. T-0027-08, the applicant alleges that the respondents' failure to indemnify him for legal costs incurred in defending charges arising within the scope of his employment amounted to discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin and race (the "Legal Costs Application"). The respondents filed their Response on August 12, 2008 and the Tribunal scheduled a mediation for October 7, 2008. On October 3, 2008 the respondents advised that they would not be attending the mediation and requested that this Application proceed together with and on the same timelines as the Progression Application. In light of the respondents' announced intention not to attend, the Tribunal cancelled the mediation and advised the applicant of this on October 6, 2008.

4The purpose of this interim decision is to issue case management directions with respect to both Applications.

PARTIES TO THE APPLICATIONS

5In the Legal Costs Application, the named respondents to the underlying complaint filed with Ontario Human Rights Commission were the Ministry of the Attorney General and Kenneth Campbell. In his Application to the Tribunal the applicant also named Michael Bryant.

6Section 53(3) applications must be based on the "subject-matter of the complaint" originally filed at the Commission. The parties named in the original complaint are the parties to the Application. Thus, Michael Bryant is not a party to the Legal Costs Application at this time. Rule 5.15 provides that requests to add parties will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and the applicant has not identified any such circumstances at this time.

PROCEEDING WITH THE APPLICATIONS TOGETHER

7The Tribunal's Rules for applications under section 53(3) of the Code are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of these Applications.

8These Applications involve similar parties and a similar factual background. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these Applications should proceed together.

CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

9In both Applications the applicant has raised objections to the respondents' choice of counsel. The applicant has refused to correspond with counsel for the respondents and persists in corresponding directly with the parties or the Tribunal alone. In both Applications the respondents have questioned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the subject matter of the Applications and raised other preliminary objections.

10As the parties and counsel in the Legal Costs Application were present at the Progression Application mediation and were consulted on the dates for the case resolution conference and written submissions, I find that it is appropriate to use those dates for the Legal Costs Application and expand the case resolution conference to a full day.

11Accordingly, the Tribunal orders with respect to both Applications:

a. These Applications will proceed together;

b. The parties shall file their written submissions and supporting material, with respect to their preliminary objections by October 29, 2008;

c. The respondents shall file their response to the applicant's submissions by November 13, 2008;

d. The applicant shall files his response to the respondents' submissions by November 27, 2008;

e. The case resolution conference shall be held on February 6, 2008 from 9.30 to 4.30 at a location to be determined;

f. The applicant shall correspond with the respondents' counsel until such time as his preliminary objection has been dealt with at the case resolution conference;