Chopra v. Kratiuk, 2009 HRTO 109

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Beata Kratiuk

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: February 2, 2009

Citation Number: 2009 HRTO 109

Indexed as: Chopra v. Kratiuk

1This is an Application filed on November 21, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (“the Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings.

2The Application arises out of the termination of the applicant’s contract as an agent with an insurance broker. The respondent is the president of the insurance broker. The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against during the time of his employment, and in the termination of his services, on the basis of age and race. He alleges reprisals for enforcing his rights under the Code. In his explanation of the reprisal, the applicant states that “I was reprised because I was in the process of resigning from Noble Group of Finance, because of its unprofessionalism.”

3Following the filing of his Application, the applicant also filed a Request for Order on the Tribunal’s Form 10, asking the Tribunal for an “interim order to stop reprisals”. The applicant asks the Tribunal to order the respondent to refrain from making derogatory comments about him to “vested clients”, and to cease making false complaints about him to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and a named insurance company.

4In support of his request, the applicant filed five letters from individuals who appear to be clients or former clients of either the applicant or the respondent’s company, none of which refer to the applicant’s Request, and appear to have been drafted for various purposes and addressed to various recipients. He also filed his own handwritten signed statement describing one of the instances alleged to constitute a reprisal. Essentially, he alleges that the respondent contacted two of his clients with a view to soliciting their business. In this statement, he states that “this is a reprisal based on my complaint to you.”

5The respondent filed a response to the Request. She indicates that the applicant does not have “vested” clients. Rather, as president and compliance officer with the insurance broker, she is responsible for the clients. She states that any contact with the clients has been based on information received from the insurance company or in response to clients’ concerns. She states that she reported the applicant to the FSCO in accordance with her obligations. Any information provided to the FSCO, to the affected insurance company or to clients has been consistent with her obligations, has been factual in nature and without any derogatory comments.

6The respondent provides details of some of the transactions involving the applicant which led to the termination of his contract and her decision to report him to the FSCO and the insurance company. She also provided a copy of a page from the website of the FSCO indicating that a hearing into the applicant’s conduct was to be held on January 19, 2009. The respondent also attached copies of a number of documents in support of her response. It does not appear that any of these have been sent to the applicant, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In any event, given my decision, it is not necessary for me to have any regard to any of them.

7Following receipt of the respondent’s response to his Request for Order, the applicant filed further materials with the Tribunal. Most of this consists of handwritten statements from the applicant, taking issue with many of the respondent’s factual assertions. One handwritten letter appears to be from a client, and is addressed to an insurance company.

DECISION

8Rule 23 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out the requirements for making a Request for an Interim Remedy. Firstly, such requests must be made in the Tribunal’s Form 16. Further, Rule 23.3 requires an applicant seeking interim remedies to provide one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the applicant relies, as well as submissions on the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances.

9The applicant has filed his request on the wrong form. Moreover, the Tribunal cannot accept the applicant’s handwritten statements as the type of declarations required by the Rules. Although they are signed, they make many assertions of facts which are beyond the applicant’s direct first-hand knowledge. The letters from the clients consist mainly of expressions of support for the applicant and complaints about the respondent. None appear to have been drafted by these clients with the intention of being submitted as evidence to the Tribunal on the applicant’s request. The applicant has made no submissions as required by Rule 23.3(a).

10The Tribunal’s Rules and processes are designed to ensure the fair, just and expeditious determination of the merits of matters before it. They are not meant to impose unduly technical barriers to the determination of the issues. The Tribunal has the power to accept material from parties even when they fail to comply with the Rules.

11However, the technical requirements of the Rules should not be lightly ignored. Strict compliance with the Rules may be necessary to the fair, just and expeditious determination of the issues before the Tribunal. In a request for interim remedies, an applicant is asking the Tribunal to take an extraordinary step. He or she is asking the Tribunal to order a respondent to take or not take certain actions, before the merits of the Application has been decided. Even before any violation of the Code has been proven, the applicant wishes the Tribunal to intervene and provide remedies.

12There will be cases where such an extraordinary step is justified. However, it should not be taken without the proper evidentiary and legal foundation, part of which is reflected in the materials an applicant must file under Rule 23.

13In this case, the applicant has not provided a proper foundation for the Tribunal to consider his request for interim remedies. The problem is not just that the applicant has used the wrong form, but that the information he provides in support of his request for interim remedies is insufficient to provide a basis for the Tribunal to consider the request.

14The Request for Order is therefore denied.