HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Harold Broomfield
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Highview Park Inc. and Mark Agman
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Broomfield v. Highview Park
1The complainant filed a complaint under the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19 as amended (the “Code”) alleging that the respondents infringed his right to equal treatment in employment because of his race, ethnic origin and place of origin. This complaint was originally filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) and was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. The complainant’s hearing is scheduled for April 21, 22 and 23, 2009.
2This Interim Decision deals with a request by Commission to withdraw from the proceedings. On March 13, 2009 the Commission filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (“Request”) in which it sought to withdraw from participation in the complainant’s hearing. The Commission indicates in its Request that:
The Commission has decided not to participate further in the hearing of the complaint;
The Commission has disclosed to the complainant and respondents all arguably relevant documents in its power, possession and control; sent its disclosure materials to the complainant and respondents by overnight courier on October 23, 2008 and sent to the complainant additional documents it received from the respondent on November 24, 2008;
The Commission served and filed its Hearing Brief on December 10, 2008 and served and filed a Reply on January 12, 2009.
The Commission also refers to Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice (applicable to Commission-referred complaints) that states:
The Commission shall bring a Request for Order During Proceedings before the Tribunal where it seeks to withdraw from participation in all or part of the proceeding.
3The Rules of Practice allow parties up to ten days to respond to a Request for Order During Proceedings after such a Request has been served. The Tribunal has not received any responses from the complainant or the respondents on the Commission’s Request.
4The Tribunal is prepared, under the circumstances, to accept the Commission’s Request to withdraw from participation in these proceedings.
5In other cases where the Commission has withdrawn from participation, the Tribunal has found that it has this power to make directions to the Commission in order to ensure an appropriate transition “in a manner that is not prejudicial to the interests of the complainant or to those of the Board [Tribunal] itself in the conduct of a fair and efficient hearing” (Forde v. Artisan Screen Print Ltd. et al,, 2001 CanLII 26226 (para. 45); See also Davis v. Trust Flooring Group, 2005 HRTO 1 and Perth v. Human Resources Capital Group Inc., 2008 HRTO 21).
6The Commission asks that it not be subject to any transitional conditions or directions, stating that it has provided the complainant with all the arguably relevant documents in its power and the added documents it received from the respondent as well as its Hearing Brief and Reply to the respondents Hearing Brief.
7The Tribunal is satisfied that it does not need to direct the Commission to take further action given its efforts to date. However, I am aware that the complainant now has to take full responsibility for presenting his case less than one month before his scheduled hearing and approximately one week before he needs to file his book of documents and witness statements. The complainant has been unrepresented to now.
8The complainant may have this all well in hand and is prepared to proceed to his scheduled hearing. However, in the event the complainant wishes to ask for an adjournment of the hearing, he must make his request in writing to the Registrar-Transition by April 7, 2009, with a copy to the respondents, explaining how long he requires. The respondents may reply to the request by April 10, 2009.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of March, 2009.
“Signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair