Kenneth Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2010 HRTO 1713

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kenneth Johnson Applicant

-and-

Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: August 18, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1713 Indexed as: Johnson v. Thorold Municipal Non-Profit Housing Corporation

1The Application was filed on September 30, 2009 pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.10, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and age in the context of housing and goods, facilities and services. The applicant also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The respondent raised a preliminary issue, seeking the dismissal of the Application because another proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

3The Tribunal issued a Decision, 2010 HRTO 685, noting that the applicant had not filed a Reply and that the time for doing so had elapsed. The Tribunal dismissed the Application on the basis that its substance had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding. In fact, however, the time for filing the Reply had not elapsed

[4] On its own motion, the Tribunal reconsidered the Decision, 2010 HRTO 787, and did the following: a. expedited the determination of the preliminary issue; and b. directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal whether he wished to make further submissions on the preliminary issue, either orally or in writing.

5The Tribunal delivered the Reconsideration Decision to the applicant by regular mail at the address identified in his Application. Administrative staff took the additional step of contacting the applicant by telephone. The applicant did not advise the Tribunal that he wished to make further submissions within the timeframe set out in the Reconsideration Decision.

6The Tribunal issued a further Interim Decision on May 31, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1214, indicating that, as the applicant had not filed any further materials, he appeared to have abandoned the Application. Nevertheless, the Tribunal gave the applicant a further seven days in which to respond in writing to the Tribunal and to advise why he had not complied with the timelines established in the Reconsideration Decision.

7On June 8, 2010, the applicant provided written submissions to the respondent and filed them with the Tribunal. The applicant states that he did not receive the Tribunal's Interim Decision until the date for filing additional submissions expired. Further, he asks that I recuse myself from this matter. He states that his case has been compromised and argues that the process of reconsidering a decision is "absurd".

8The respondent has filed correspondence with the Tribunal. It states that, given that the applicant has not complied with timelines set by the Tribunal or explained his failure to comply with these timelines, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to determine the preliminary issue based on the materials already filed.

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL

9The applicant does not explain how he feels his case has been compromised, although he expresses concern about the fairness of the reconsideration process. He argues that it is "absurd" for a Vice-chair to reconsider a decision already rendered.

10Section 45.7(2) of the Code gives the Tribunal the ability to reconsider its own decisions, either at a party's request or of its own motion. The power to reconsider is specifically set out in the Code and I see no reason to recuse myself based on its application in this case. Accordingly, the Request for Recusal is denied.

ORAL HEARING

11Section 43(2) of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application within its jurisdiction without affording the parties a chance to make oral submissions.

12Accordingly, given that the applicant has expressed a desire to participate in an oral hearing, the Registrar will schedule a ½ day hearing by telephone conference call for the purpose of dealing with the respondent's request that the Application be dismissed because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with its substance. The Tribunal may address the applicant's failure to comply with timelines at this time.

[13] The following directions shall apply to the hearing: a. The applicant should be prepared to proceed first at the hearing, by responding to the respondent's written argument; and b. Any party wishing to rely on written materials not already filed with the Tribunal or any facts not contained in the Application or Response must deliver such documents or information to the other parties and file them with the Registrar 21 prior to the date of the hearing.

14I am not seized of this matter