Uzma Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2009 HRTO 1814

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Uzma Akhtar Applicant

-and-

Law Society of Upper Canada, Daphne Simon, Diana Miles and Roman Woloszczuk Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: October 30, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1814 Indexed as: Akhtar v. Law Society of Upper Canada

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the "Code"). There have been two previous Interim Decisions made by the Tribunal, in which the background to the Application is set out fully. In the first, 2009 HRTO 1274, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's Request to Expedite Proceedings and sought submissions on whether the Application should be deferred. In the second, 2009 HRTO 1479, the Tribunal ordered that the Application be deferred, pursuant to Rule 19, pending a judicial review application that was scheduled to be heard by the Divisional Court on September 21, 2009.

2The judicial review has now been heard and decided. The applicant has requested: (i) that the Application be re-activated; (ii) that the Application be expedited, and (iii) that production of various documents be ordered. The respondents accept that it is appropriate that the Application proceed, but submit that in view of the Divisional Court decision, the Application should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 22.1, which reflects s. 45.1 of the Code. The Code section reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The respondents oppose the production request.

3From correspondence sent by the applicant, it appears that she objects to the fact that the respondent did not provide her with copies of documents in support of its arguments under s. 45.1, referred to in its Responses to the Application and the Form 2. The respondent is directed to ensure that they are delivered to the applicant. As they are not necessary for me to consider for the purposes of this Interim Decision, the Tribunal extends any time limits pursuant to Rule 1.7 (b) to permit their filing.

4The Tribunal orders, pursuant to Rule 14.3, that the Application shall proceed. With regard to the Request to Expedite, there have been no reasons provided by the applicant that would cause the Tribunal to revisit its previous decision not to expedite this matter. The Request to Expedite is denied.

5In view of the Divisional Court decision, I agree with the respondent that it is appropriate to hear oral submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. The Registrar is requested to schedule a half-day oral hearing at which the parties may make submissions on this issue. The parties shall file any additional documents upon which they intend to rely in support of their arguments no later than two weeks prior to date of the hearing. The parties need not comply with Rules 16 and 17 pending a determination of the respondent's request to dismiss the Application pursuant to s. 45.1.

6The applicant's production request is dismissed as premature. The Tribunal has held that absent exceptional circumstances, production orders will not be made in advance of the obligation to disclose arguably relevant documents under the Tribunal's Rules: see, for example, Dube v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, 2009 HRTO 132. No such circumstances exist here.

7I am not seized.