minicounsel

Ronald Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate Corp. Inc. and Sue Di Illio, 2009 HRTO 1133 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

July 24, 2009

Ronald Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate Corp. Inc. and Sue Di Illio, 2009 HRTO 1133

Case Summary

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing pending a reconsideration determination in a separate application involving the same applicant but different respondents. The respondents objected to the adjournment. The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the outcome of the reconsideration would not affect the fairness of the hearing in this application, as the fair and expeditious determination of this matter was not dependent on the other application.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronald Davie

Applicant

-and-

PMA Brethour Real Estate Corp. Inc. and Sue Di Illio

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: July 24, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1133

Indexed as: Davie v. PMA Brethour Real Estate

[1] This Application was scheduled for Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) with another Application, T-0675-08, involving the same applicant but not the same respondents on June 12, 2009. During that hearing I dismissed T-0675-08 with reasons to follow. It was not possible to complete the hearing of this Application on June 12. By Notice dated June 23, 2009, the hearing was scheduled to resume on August 7, 2009.

[2] On July 11, 2009, the applicant requested reconsideration of my decision dismissing T-0675-08. On July 17, 2009, the Registrar-Transition advised the applicant that the request for reconsideration was premature as the Tribunal has not issued its decision and reasons.

[3] The applicant wrote to the Registrar-Transition on July 21, 2009 requesting an adjournment of the August 7, 2009 hearing pending the reconsideration determination “on the basis that the [reconsideration] decision will have a significant impact on the case.”

[4] Counsel for the respondents wrote on July 22, 2009 objecting to the request to adjourn on the basis that the decision to dismiss Application T-0675-08 had no impact on the claim made by the applicant against his clients.

[5] In my view, the outcome of the request for reconsideration will not affect the fairness of the hearing of the issues in dispute in this Application. The applicant is charged with establishing that the respondents in this proceeding discriminated against him contrary to the Code. The fair just and expeditious determination of this Application is not dependant upon a determination of the allegations or issues in dispute in Application T-0675-08.

[6] The request for adjournment is denied.

Dated at Toronto, this 24^th day of July, 2009.

“Signed by”

Keith Brennenstuhl

Vice-chair