Chopra v. Kratiuk, 2009 HRTO 1526

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Beata Kratiuk

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: September 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1526

Indexed as: Chopra v. Kratiuk

1This is an Application that was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), relating to the termination of the applicant’s contract as an agent of the insurance broker of which the respondent is the president. The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of age and race both during his employment and in the termination of his services. This Interim Decision deals with a Request for an Interim Remedy filed by the applicant on August 13, 2009.

2The parties have engaged in prolific pre-hearing wrangling. The Tribunal has issued four prior Interim Decisions, relating to preliminary requests brought by the parties. The relevant prior Interim Decision in relation to the request sought for an Interim Remedy, is Chopra v. Kratiuk, 2009 HRTO 109, dated February 2, 2009 (the “February 2009 decision”) . In that Interim Decision, the Tribunal considered a request brought by the applicant in the form of a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), seeking an order that the respondent “stop reprisals” and 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 and an insurance company. In support of that Request, the applicant filed five letters from persons identified as clients or former clients, as well as a handwritten signed statement by the applicant describing an incident of alleged reprisal.

3In the February 2009 decision, the Tribunal ruled that the applicant had failed to bring his request for an interim remedy in the proper form and relied on inadequate supporting documentation.

4In the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy filed on August 13, 2009, the applicant asks the Tribunal to “Issue instructions to respondent to cease reprisal actions and passing derrogatory [sic] remarks.” In support of the Request, the applicant filed a number of statements apparently from current or former clients, a handwritten signed statement, and numerous additional documents apparently relied upon as evidence of the allegations of reprisal.

5Rule 23.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules state that a Request for Interim Remedy must include:

a) a detailed description of the order sought;

b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all the facts upon which the applicant relies; and

c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances.

6The applicant has failed to file a complete Request, within the meaning of Rule 23.3. He has not produced one or more declarations signed by persons with first-hand knowledge of the facts on which he relies, and he did not make submissions addressing the balance of harm and why an interim remedy is appropriate.

7It appears that the content of this Request is not substantially different from the previous request made in the form of a RFOP, which was denied in the February 2009 decision.

8The Tribunal reiterates that parties involved in a Tribunal application, like other legal proceedings, are entitled to contact individuals who may be witnesses for the other side. Further, to the extent that parties are involved in a competitive business market, there is nothing that precludes them from competing with one another while litigation is ongoing. The material filed by the applicant does not establish grounds for an interim remedy from the Tribunal, pending the hearing of this Application.

9Although there is no basis to order an interim remedy, the applicant’s allegations that the respondent’s actions constitute reprisal under the Code will be addressed at the hearing.

ORDER

10Based on the above, the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy is denied. Consequently, it is unnecessary for me to decide the respondent’s Request for additional time to respond.