Vizcaya v. University of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 1116

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Salvador Vizcaya

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto (University College), Robin Morgan, Sylvia Bashevkin and Ken Aucoin

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: July 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1116

Indexed as: Vizcaya v. University of Toronto

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings in an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2Before considering the Request, it may be of assistance to briefly describe the Tribunal’s hearing process. Further information is set out in the Tribunal’s Information Bulletin: Hearings available on the Tribunal’s website. Twenty-one days following the issuance of a Confirmation of Hearing by the Registrar’s office, the parties are obligated, pursuant to Rule 16, to disclose to each other all arguably relevant documents in their possession. In this way, each party obtains documents that may be in the possession of the other party. If a party seeks production of additional arguably relevant documents from a party or non-party, it may request a production order from the Tribunal after this time. Forty-five days prior to the first day of hearing, each party must provide the documents it intends to rely upon, a list of witnesses it intends to call, and a summary of each witness’s intended evidence. A party may obtain a summons to compel the attendance of a witness not within its control.

3At a hearing, subject to the direction and rulings of the Tribunal adjudicator, each party may question witnesses in chief and in cross-examination and introduce documents as evidence. The parties make arguments about the facts and the law at the hearing, following which the presiding adjudicator writes a written decision which is provided to the parties.

4I turn now to the applicant’s Requests. First, he asks that the Tribunal consolidate this Application with Application T-0639-08 if possible. In the alternative, he asks that if it is impossible to resuscitate his earlier complaint, “the respondents should be banned from using any instance of my having made a human rights complaint to label me as a troublemaker or as being ‘disruptive’”. He also seeks damages against the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Tribunal regarding the previous matter.

5Tribunal File T-0639 was dismissed by a different adjudicator, 2009 HRTO 526, and a Request for Reconsideration was dismissed, 2009 HRTO 972. As this Application has been finally disposed of, I have no power to consolidate the two Applications. Section 45.8 of the Code reads as follows:

Subject to section 45.6 of this Act, section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal rules, a decision of the Tribunal is final and not subject to appeal and shall not be altered or set aside in an application for judicial review or in any other proceeding unless the decision is patently unreasonable.

The previous decision may only be overturned by the Divisional Court on an Application for Judicial Review.

6Regarding the applicant’s alternative arguments in relation to this issue, the applicant may object to any evidence regarding the first complaint at the hearing, and the hearing adjudicator will make a decision at that time. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award damages against anyone where it has dismissed an Application as outside its jurisdiction.

7The applicant’s second request is that the Chancellor of the University of Toronto be interviewed as a witness. Once a hearing has been set, if the applicant wishes to compel her to attend the hearing to give evidence, he may request a signed Form 24, Summons to Witness, from the Registrar’s office and follow the procedure set out in the form. The request is dismissed.

8The applicant’s third request is for production of documents. The Tribunal has held that such requests will only be considered once the deadline for disclosure of all relevant documents has passed under Rule 16: see, for example, Dube v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, 2009 HRTO 132. The request is dismissed, but may be made again if the requested documents have not been disclosed pursuant to the respondent’s disclosure obligations.

9I am not seized of this matter.