HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Terry Mertick
Applicant
-and-
Office of the Registrar General, Registrar General of Ontario, and Province of Ontario
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Mertick v. Office of the Registrar General
1The applicant filed an application under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), on November 3, 2009 alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services, and facilities because of creed.
2In March 2010, the applicant corresponded with the Tribunal and advised that he wished to use the assistance of a legal representative with respect to his Application and identified his prospective counsel as Raymond Bogg (“Bogg”).
3In March 2010, the respondents filed a Request for Early Dismissal on the following two bases: (i) the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as a previously filed complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) and (ii) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.
4On April 14, 2010, Bogg corresponded with the Tribunal’s office and advised that he was awaiting direction from Legal Aid Ontario (“Legal Aid”) as to whether or not his office was retained to act on behalf of the applicant.
5On April 15, 2010, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 14 days addressing the two issues raised in the respondents’ Request for Early Dismissal. No submissions were filed by that deadline.
6On May 19, 2010, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he was in a Federal penitentiary and had just received the Tribunal’s April 15, 2010 correspondence. On May 20, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Extension of Time indicating that he was requesting additional time in order to retain legal counsel. On the same day, Bogg wrote to the Tribunal requesting an extension of time on behalf of the applicant because: (i) Bogg was out of jurisdiction involved in a jury trial that had been delayed and (ii) Bogg needed to provide Legal Aid with an opinion in order to secure a retainer for the applicant.
7On July 2, 2010, the respondents filed a Response objecting to the applicant’s Request for Extension of Time. The respondents argue that their Request for Early Dismissal should be dealt with first.
8The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it. The respondents have not identified any prejudice that would be caused by granting the applicant’s request for additional time. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the applicant a two week extension to make his submissions with respect to the respondent’s Request for Early Dismissal.
9The Tribunal orders as follows:
Within 14 days of this Interim Decision, the applicant may file with the Tribunal and deliver to the respondents written submissions with respect to the respondents’ Request for Early Dismissal;
Within 10 days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions, the respondents may file Reply submissions; and
If the applicant does not file submissions in accordance with this timeline, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the issues based on the documents before it.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of July, 2010.
”signed by”______________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair