Frolov v. Mosregion Investment Corporation, 2009 HRTO 547

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Dmitri Frolov

Applicant

-and-

Mosregion Investment Corporation and Dina Stolyarova

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Dina Stolyarova

Applicant

-and-

Mosregion Investment Corporation, Igor Bakouchev and David Frolov

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 30, 2009

Citation: 2008 HRTO 547

Indexed as: Frolov v. Mosregion Investment Corporation

1This Interim Decision addresses the issues raised in the respondent Igor Bakouchev’s April 14, 2009 Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

Extension of time to amend pleadings and/or file additional documentation pertaining to Ms. Stolyarova’s new ground of “sexual solicitation”

2Mr. Bakouchev requests an extension of time to amend his pleadings and file any additional documents in response to my Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 384 (“the April 2 decision”), allowing Ms Stolyarova to amend her Application to adding sexual solicitation as a ground. Mr. Bakouchev states he is prejudiced because has not had sufficient time to respond although he fails to provide any estimate of time required or articulate the basis on which he asserts prejudice. In the circumstances, where the hearing does not resume for nearly two months, Mr. Bakouchev may have a further brief extension of time, to May 8, 2009, to amend his pleadings and file any additional documentation in response to the added ground of sexual solicitation.

Complaint to Chair Gottheil

3Mr. Bakouchev submits I have not addressed the portion of his earlier RFOP relating to his complaint to Chair Gottheil concerning the actions of Tribunal staff in the April 2 decision. Mr. Bakouchev alleges “[t]his is prejudicial to MIC”. Again, he fails to identify the basis for the asserted prejudice.

4As I stated at paragraph 68 of the April 2 decision, “These allegations have been filed as a complaint against the Tribunal and will be considered in the normal course following the Tribunal’s practice of addressing such complaints”. To be clear, complaints about Tribunal staff are not properly part of the subject-matter of the Applications before me and I will not consider them further. If Mr. Bakouchev wishes to pursue his complaint he should advise Chair Gottheil as he was invited to do in the March 5, 2009 letter from Chair Gottheil.

Adjournment of the April 2009 Hearing Dates

5The April 14, 2009 RFOP requests, again, an adjournment of the hearing dates previously scheduled for April 2009. As Ms. Vaccarelli notes, this Request has already been granted.

Rescheduling of the April 2009 Hearing Dates

6As directed I now have alternate dates from Ms. Vaccarelli. Therefore, the Tribunal will schedule June 29, July 3, 27, 28, 31, 2009 as additional hearing dates.

Order

7Therefore, I order:

(a) Mr. Bakouchev shall have until May 8, 2009 to comply with paragraph 76(g) of the April 2, 2009 Interim Decision;

(b) Mr. Bakouchev may pursue his complaint about employees of the Tribunal through the Tribunal’s complaint’s process;

(c) The hearing will resume on June 29, July 3, 27, 28 and 31, 2009.