Ignacio Drenic v. House of Friendship of Kitchener, Andrew Suderman, Carl Sukkau and Lester Murphy, 2008 HRTO 344

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ignacio Drenic

Applicant

-and-

House of Friendship of Kitchener, Andrew Suderman, Carl Sukkau and Lester Murphy

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Date: December 3, 2008
Citation: 2008 HRTO 344
Indexed as: Drenic v. House of Friendship

1This is an Application filed October 22, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). On November 18, 2008 counsel for corporate respondent, Andrew Suderman and Carl Sukkau (the "served respondents") filed a Response (Form B). On November 26, 2008 the Tribunal scheduled mediation in this matter for February 10, 2009.

Failure to Serve

2The applicant delivered the Application to the respondents at the address of the House of Friendship. The served respondents' Response indicates that personal respondent Lester Murphy left the employ of the House of Friendship in October 2006 and his whereabouts are unknown.

3It is the obligation of the applicant to serve all respondents with the Application (Form A). The Tribunal is not satisfied the personal respondent Lester Murphy has been properly served.

4The corporate respondent is directed to provide the applicant and the Tribunal with the last known addresses for Lester Murphy, within 10 days of the date of this decision.

5If the applicant intends to continue the proceedings against Lester Murphy he shall locate and serve him with the Application and file a Statement of Delivery (Form C) with the Tribunal once this respondent is served. Alternatively, the applicant is directed to advise the Tribunal and the other respondents in writing within 10 days of receiving Mr. Murphy's contact information if he elects not to proceed against him.

Refusal to Add Respondents at this Stage of Proceedings

6The applicant initially named several persons not named in his original complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission"). Section 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. Rule 5.15 provides that requests to add parties will only be considered in exceptional circumstances, which do not exist at this stage of the proceedings.

7The applicant has sent numerous emails to the Tribunal and counsel for the served respondents insulting Tribunal staff and counsel for the respondents in respect of their respective efforts to identify the respondents in the Application. This decision should make clear to the applicant that only the above named parties are parties to this proceeding. The applicant shall cease to direct any further correspondence to the Tribunal or counsel for the served respondents on this issue.

Applicant's Inappropriate Communications

8On November 10, 2008 the applicant emailed 53 pages of photographs of Croatia followed by a final paragraph referring to counsel as a "Croatian shit." On November 13, 2008 the applicant wrote to the Tribunal with a photograph of the counsel's law firm, referring to the persons as "ugly".

9On November 12, 2008 counsel for the served respondents advised the applicant that he would not accept further emails from the applicant, but that necessary documents should be delivered by fax.

10On November 17, 2008 the applicant filed material with the Tribunal apparently relating to a previous complaint filed with the Commission concerning events in 2000 at the University of Waterloo. On November 19, and 20, 2008 the applicant wrote emails to persons allegedly involved in the University of Waterloo matter using insulting and profane language. These emails were copied to the Tribunal, the respondents and numerous other persons. The events at the University of Waterloo in 2000 have nothing to do with the present Application. The applicant is directed to cease sending the Tribunal or any of the respondents in this matter any further correspondence relating to the University of Waterloo matter.

11The applicant's written correspondence to the Tribunal and counsel for the respondents is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It amounts to an abuse of the Tribunal's process. Section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22, as amended, provides the Tribunal with the power to make orders or give such directions necessary to prevent abuse of its processes.

12In order to prevent an abuse of the Tribunal's proceedings, the Tribunal orders:

• The applicant shall cease emailing any of the served respondents or their counsel. The applicant is directed to correspond with the served respondents through their counsel, by fax or regular mail or courier; and,
• The applicant shall immediately cease including insults and profane language in his oral or written communications with the Tribunal, the served respondents and their counsel.