Taranco v. Michedes, 2009 HRTO 696

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Taranco Applicant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission Commission

-and-

Peter Michedes aka Panayitis Michaelides Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: May 26, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 696 Indexed as: Taranco v. Michedes

Reasons for Decision

1This Complaint was referred to the Tribunal by the Commission pursuant to section 36(1) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") and alleged discrimination on the basis of age and sex in respect of accommodation.

2On April 9, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Decision, 2009 HRTO 426, dismissing the Complaint on the basis that no evidence had been presented upon which the Tribunal could find that the respondent had violated the complainant's rights under the Code or order the requested remedies.

3In an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 67, the Tribunal ordered that the Complaint would proceed by way of written hearing and that, in the absence of submissions by the respondent, the Commission and the complainant should submit their evidence on the Complaint in affidavit form. Neither the Commission nor the complainant submitted any such evidence and the Complaint was therefore dismissed by the Tribunal.

4On April 27, 2009, the Commission filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision. The Commission submits that its counsel had misread the Tribunal's Interim Decision and failed to understand that it was required to submit affidavit evidence in the written hearing. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the Commission submits that Commission counsel erroneously informed the complainant, who was not represented by legal counsel, that he was not required to submit anything to the Tribunal in the written hearing. The Commission submits that the Tribunal ought to grant the Request for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 102(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Commission-referred Complaints because there are factors in this case which outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

5Rule 103 provides that the Tribunal shall not grant any request for reconsideration without providing the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

6The complainant is hereby directed to provide written submissions with respect to the Request for Reconsideration. Specifically, the complainant is directed to explain to the Tribunal whether he wishes the Request for Reconsideration to be granted and why he feels it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to do so. The complainant is directed to serve his written submissions on the Commission and on the respondent and to file them with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this decision.

7The respondent is directed to serve his submissions regarding whether the Request should be granted on the Commission and on the complainant and to file them with the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of this decision.

8The Commission is directed to immediately serve the respondent personally with this decision and its Request for Reconsideration. Alternatively, if the Commission wishes to effect service by another method as provided for in the Tribunal's Rules, it will need to satisfy the Tribunal that the address it has provided for the respondent is a valid address for him, which it has not previously done in these proceedings The Tribunal's Interim Decision 2008 HRTO 324 addressed the issue of service on the respondent.

9Once the parties have had an opportunity to make submissions on the Request for Reconsideration, the Tribunal will decide whether to grant the Request.

10The parties' attention is drawn to the Tribunal's Practice Direction No. 4 regarding Reconsideration (available on our website).