Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1681

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Keyvan Nourhaghighi

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board, COSTI Corvetti Centre, COSTI Board, City of Toronto, United Way of Greater Toronto, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Attorney General,

and eight individual respondents

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: October 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1681

Indexed as: Nourhaghighi v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed on December 11, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2By Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1519 the Tribunal directed that no person having knowledge of the order publish (including posting on the internet) or distribute any information identifying the individual respondents to this Application, as well as any individuals (apart from counsel) named in the Application, Responses or Reply.

3That Interim Decision also directed the applicant to provide the Tribunal with a written undertaking, by October 6, 2009, that he will abide by the Tribunal’s expectations of appropriate language and conduct during its processes and in particular, will refrain from any oral or written statements that are offensive, abusive or profane. The Interim Decision stated that, if the applicant did not provide this written assurance by this deadline, the Tribunal would consider how to proceed with his Application, and may take further steps including receiving submissions on dismissal of the Application as an abuse of process

4The Tribunal is in receipt of a letter from counsel for the Toronto Catholic District School Board and six individual respondents (the Board respondents) requesting that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant has failed to comply with the Tribunal’s directions of September 22, 2009.

5The grounds for the request to dismiss are that the applicant has not filed the undertaking required by the Interim Decision, and that the applicant has failed to comply with the “publication ban” as outlined in that Interim Decision and continues to disseminate information about the personally named respondents on the internet.

6The Board respondents request that the hearing currently scheduled in this matter for October 28, 2008 be adjourned so that this request to dismiss may be dealt with first.

7The Tribunal has also received a letter from counsel for the COSTI Corvetti Centre and associated respondents (the COSTI respondents) requesting, among other things, that this Application be dismissed as a result of the applicant’s failure to provide the undertaking directed in the Interim Decision.

8On the basis of the information and submissions in the letter from the Board respondents and COSTI respondents and the material before it, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to cancel the hearing of October 28. The requirement to file written materials in connection with that hearing is vacated.

9The Tribunal will request submissions on the requests to dismiss. The Board respondents and COSTI respondents may deliver and file written submissions in support of their requests by October 29, 2009. Any other party may respond in writing by delivering and filing their written submissions by November 12, 2009. Those submissions must state whether they agree or disagree with any of the facts set out in the submissions of the Board respondents and COSTI respondents and if they disagree, set out their statement of the facts. If the applicant chooses to deliver and file written submissions, he must explain why the Tribunal should consider his submissions in the absence of the undertaking required by the Interim Decision of September 22.

10The Board respondents and COSTI respondents may reply by November 19, 2009.

11If any party wishes to have an opportunity to make oral submissions on the request to dismiss, they must indicate this and explain why this is necessary in their written submissions.

12The “no publication” direction in paragraph 36 of the Interim Decision continues in effect.

13Upon receipt of the written submissions the Tribunal may make further directions as to the hearing of this matter, or may dismiss the Application.