Gerrald Stangret v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2008 HRTO 315

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gerrald Stangret Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: November 28, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 315 Indexed as: Stangret v. Toronto Transit Commission

1This is an Application filed September 11, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the "Code"). In a prior Interim Decision (2008 HRTO 211), the Tribunal directed the applicant to deliver the Application (Form A), with the Commission complaint attached, to the respondent's counsel and to file a Statement of Delivery (Form C) confirming the delivery.

2The applicant filed a Statement of Delivery and the Tribunal proceeded to schedule a mediation for February 13, 2009.

3On November 25, 2008 the respondent wrote to the Tribunal advising that, notwithstanding the applicant's Statement of Delivery, it had not yet received the Application. The respondent also requested that the applicant deliver full particulars and audiotapes at this time.

4The Tribunal is faced with the situation where the applicant alleges that the Application was delivered, in accordance with the Tribunal Rules, and the respondent alleges it did not receive the Application. I find that the most expeditious way to proceed is to enclose a copy of the Application (Form A) and the underlying complaint with this decision.

5The respondent is directed to file its Response within 35 days of receiving this decision and the Application. The respondent is further directed to advise the Tribunal within 10 days of receiving this decision and the Application of its availability for mediation on February 13, 2009.

Request for Particulars Prior to Filing Response

6The Tribunal's Rules Governing Section 53(3) Applications contemplate that the first step in most section 53(3) Applications is mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, or if a party refuses to attend mediation, the Application will be scheduled for a case resolution conference and the parties are required to provide further particulars and disclosure at that time in accordance with Rule 9. Therefore, the respondent's request for particulars is premature and denied at this time.