minicounsel

Gerrald Stangret v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 318 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

March 18, 2009

Gerrald Stangret v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 318

Case Summary

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with a previous Tribunal order regarding disclosure and statements of fact. The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding it was not plain and obvious that the applicant's explanation for missing the deadline was untrue. However, the Tribunal granted the respondent's alternative request, ordering the applicant to provide copies of transit transfers and written transcripts of the disputed audio tapes.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gerrald Stangret

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: March 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 318

Indexed as: Stangret v. Toronto Transit Commission

[1] This is an Application filed September 11, 2008 under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). In a prior Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 184](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/184), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a written explanation for why he did not comply with the Tribunal’s deadline of February 9, 2009 to provide a statement of additional facts and remedy and to disclose the tapes in dispute.

[2] On March 6, 2009, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal advising that he was unaware of any deadlines, except the April deadlines for filing witness statement and documents with the Tribunal.

[3] The respondent asserts this is manifestly untrue, as the deadline was set out in the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, [2009 HRTO 19](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/19), “the January 2009 Interim Decision” directing the applicant to file the additional statements of fact and make disclosure within 30 days of the date of the January 2009 Interim Decision. That deadline expired February 9, 2009, although the specific date was not identified in the Interim Decision. The January 2009 Interim Decision was sent by courier to the applicant’s address. The respondent referenced an email from the applicant dated January 12, 2009 in which he made specific reference to the January 2009 Interim Decision.

[4] The respondent requests that the Application be dismissed for the applicant’s persistent failure or refusal to comply with the Tribunals’ orders and his deliberate misleading of the Tribunal as to the reasons for that failure or refusal.

[5] It is not plain and obvious that the applicant’s explanation is untrue (as opposed to a misunderstanding) and it would not be appropriate in the circumstances to dismiss the Application at this stage.

[6] In the alternative, the respondent requested that the applicant be directed to provide a copy (back and front) of the Transit Transfers used on the days in dispute and also to provide a written version of the tapes submitted.

[7] I am satisfied that these requests are reasonable.

[8] The applicant is directed to provide, to the Tribunal and the respondent, by April 1, 2009:

a. A copy (front and back) of the Transit Transfers relevant to the days in dispute (if they exist); and,

b. A written version of what the applicant asserts is recorded on the tapes.

Dated at Toronto, this 18^th day of March, 2009.

“Signed by”

_________________________________________

Kaye Joachim

Alternate Chair