HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Prince Okunbor
Applicant
-and-
Hopewell Logistics Inc., Larry Hargreaves and Marcel Sivret
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim
Indexed as: Okunbor v. Hopewell Logistics
1This is an Application received September 15, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
[2] This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request for early dismissal on the basis that the applicant failed to file his statement of additional facts and remedy in a timely manner and because the applicant’s materials lack particulars. The Case Resolution Conference is scheduled for October 5 and 6, 2009.
[3] The applicant’s statement of additional facts and remedy were due March 13, 2009 and the respondents’ statement of additional facts and response to remedy were due March 27, 2009. On March 26, 2009, the personal respondent Sivret wrote to the Tribunal seeking to be relieved of his obligation to file his materials because the applicant had not filed any materials. The Tribunal advised the parties that the applicant’s failure to abide by the Tribunal’s Rules did not relieve the respondents from their obligations and extended the deadline for the respondents’ to file their materials to April 3, 2009. On March 30, 2009, the applicant filed an additional statement of facts and remedy. The applicant’s representative did not seek an extension, nor provide an explanation for why the material was filed late.
[4] The transitional provisions of the Code are intended to deal with the subject-matter of complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008. The legislative intention as set out in the transition provisions is that section 53(3) applications should be dealt with in a highly expeditious manner.
[5] In my view, it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding to entertain preliminary requests for particulars or objections for non-compliance with the Rules. I am satisfied that the lack of particulars complained of does not prevent the respondents from filing a response. The consequence of the applicant’s late filing and lack of particulars will be dealt with at the hearing by the Member conducting the Case Resolution Conference.
[6] The respondents’ request for early dismissal and particulars is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of April, 2009.
“Signed by”
_________________________________________
Kaye Joachim
Alternate Chair