Arnob Bose v. Ontario Realty Corporation, 2010 HRTO 1437

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Arnob Bose

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Realty Corporation, David Glass, H.R. Goss, Jennifer Lau, Jim Curran, Judy Satram and Kathy Bull

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: June 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1437

Indexed as: Bose v. Ontario Reality Corporation

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on February 12, 2010. A copy of the Application was sent to the respondents on May 3, 2010. In the Application, the applicant alleges discrimination and harassment with respect to employment based on colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, family status and age.

2On May 28, 2010, the respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“Request”). In the Request, the respondents seek an order that the applicant provide particulars, and an extension of time to file the Response. The applicant has filed a Form 11 outlining his position on the issues raised.

3As a matter of course, the Tribunal requires respondents to file complete responses prior to making any preliminary objections, including those relating to jurisdiction. The limited exceptions to this general rule are outlined in Rule 8.2 and summarized as follows in Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, 2008 HRTO 381, at para. 8:

The Tribunal’s response form permits a request for early dismissal without a full response in only three circumstances: where the respondent alleges that a claim for relief based upon the same facts was filed in civil court, that a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based upon the same, or substantially the same facts, or that a full and final release was signed. In all other circumstances, respondents must file a full response, even where a preliminary or jurisdictional issue is being raised.

4The Tribunal in Masood created an additional fourth category of cases in which a full Response may not be necessary, namely when the respondent alleges that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction. The preliminary issues raised in the present Request do not fall into any of the four categories identified in Masood.

5As the Tribunal indicated in Grant v. Bombardier, 2009 HRTO 267, 2009 HRTO 267, the filing of a complete response is an integral part of the Tribunal’s process. It allows the parties to better understand the nature of the issues and assists the Tribunal in determining how best to proceed with the Application with a view to facilitating its fair, just and expeditious resolution, including making preliminary determinations.

6The Tribunal may vary or waive the application of its Rules, including the requirement to file a full response. Absent exceptional circumstances, which are not present in this case, a request for particulars or production of documents will not delay the filing of a complete response. Here, the allegations are sufficiently detailed and, in my view, the respondents are in a position to meaningfully respond to the Application.

7The respondents are directed to file a complete Response within 21 days of this Interim Decision.

8In his Response to the Request, the applicant has indicated that he has no objection to providing specified information and wants specified documents from the respondents. He has also indicated concern for identifying certain individuals who are currently employed with the respondent. In this regard, both parties are reminded of their ongoing disclosure obligations arising as the Application progresses, as identified in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

9I am not seized of this matter.