Richard Banigan v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2009 HRTO 1367

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Banigan Applicant

-and-

Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: August 31, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1367

Indexed as: Banigan v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology

1This is an Application dated June 8, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on April 8, 2007.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to strike the submissions filed by the respondent with their Response form.

3The applicant has filed a Request for Order seeking to remove all submissions filed by the respondent with the exception of the Kruger Arbitration Report on the grounds that they are inadmissible. The applicant objects on the basis that the respondent’s submissions reflect only their side of the previous complaints that he has filed and on the basis that none of these prior complaints is relevant to the current complaint which forms the basis of this Application, which alleges reprisal.

4The applicant appears to be operating under a misapprehension as to the Tribunal’s Rules as they apply to transitional applications, which apply where complaints had been filed with the Commission that were still outstanding at the time of the transition to the new system. Pursuant to Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Transitional Rules, respondents are required to file a copy of any response to the complaint that they had filed with the Commission. The respondent has simply complied with this obligation.

5Any determination as to the relevance or admissibility of the information referenced in the Response as filed by the respondent is a matter for determination by the adjudicator at the hearing in this matter.

6I note that all parties have agreed to mediation in this matter. At this stage, there is no requirement for the applicant to file any further materials, particularly as they may relate to prior issues that are not the subject of his reprisal complaint. The Tribunal already has a copy of his reply to the response filed by the respondent with the Commission. In the event that mediation is not successful in resolving this matter, both parties will be afforded the opportunity to provide the Tribunal with a statement of any additional facts that they intend to rely upon that are relevant to the issues raised in the complaint, and both parties will be afforded the opportunity to file with the Tribunal any documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing.

7The applicant’s request to strike is denied.

8I am not seized.