Ignacio Drenic v. City of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 1961

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ignacio Drenic

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: November 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1961

Indexed as: Drenic v. Toronto (City)

1As described in the Tribunal’s Interim Decision in Dioba v. Taddeo, 2009 HRTO 1609, the applicant in this matter has filed numerous Applications against various respondents. During the course of pursuing his various Applications, the applicant has filed a voluminous amount of correspondence and documentation with the Tribunal. In these materials, the applicant has made submissions which are disrespectful and offensive towards Tribunal staff and other parties. As a result, on September 22, 2009, the Executive Director of the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant requesting that the applicant provide an undertaking regarding future communications, failing which the Tribunal may refuse to take further steps in his Applications.

2The applicant subsequently provided the undertaking in the following form set by the Tribunal:

I, Nacon Dioba, undertake that I will comply with the rules of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) in any application before the HRTO in which I am a party using any name.

In particular, I undertake to treat HRTO staff, adjudicators and the other parties in any proceeding before the HRTO with respect and courtesy, and will only provide emails or other materials that are related to issues in an application and do not contain any offensive, abusive, profane, lewd or threatening language.

I will not file any material that:

• refers to any party, representative or HRTO staff member using a disparaging name or description;

• contains threats of any nature;

• uses profane language; or,

• makes lewd or sexual references.

I understand that if I breach this undertaking, the HRTO may not proceed with my application(s).

I understand that this undertaking does not prevent me from pursuing any recourse that may be available to me through the courts, the Ontario Ombudsman or other legal means.

3The respondent now alleges that the applicant is in breach of the undertaking, through statements made by the applicant in email correspondence of October 30, November 9 and November 10, 2009.

4On review of the material before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has breached the undertaking he provided to the Tribunal, through comments about the respondent, counsel for the respondent and the Tribunal that are insulting and offensive. The applicant describes employees of the respondent as having “average education … about grade seven … and some of have not [sic] completed that in Canada.” He describes them as “worthless and uneducated”. He states that counsel for the respondent “lies and covers up the actual facts” and “smells the fact that [the Tribunal has] set me up for the destruction in this application.” His correspondence of November 10 to counsel for the respondent is in the form of a bizarre and disturbing love letter.

5In view of the applicant’s breach of the undertaking, the Tribunal requests submissions from the respondent on the consequence that should follow. The Tribunal requests submissions on whether the Application should be adjourned, stayed, dismissed, or whether any other order or direction should be made.

6The respondent’s submissions, including any applicable case law or other supporting material, must be provided by December 9, 2009. The applicant may respond to those submissions by December 23, 2009. The respondent may reply to the applicant’s submissions by January 6, 2010.

7If either party wishes to have an opportunity to make oral submissions on these issues, they must indicate this and explain why this is necessary in their written submissions. The Tribunal may decide the issues on the basis of the written submissions.

8I am not seized of this matter.