Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Peter Khaiter Applicant
-and-
York University, Barry Miller and Rhonda Lenton Respondents
-and-
York University Faculty Association Intervenor
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: February 3, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 248 Indexed as: Khaiter v. York University
Reasons for Decision
1This is an Application filed on April 8, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that he has suffered discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin.
2The Tribunal is in receipt of submissions from the applicant seeking amongst other things an adjournment of the hearing scheduled to take place on February 5, 2010. The grounds for the adjournment request include the other issues raised by the applicant in his submissions. I will deal with those in turn.
3The applicant states that the Tribunal's direction that the hearing date of February 5, 2010 be devoted to hearing the respondent York University's Request for an early dismissal is contrary to the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications (the "Rules"). The applicant states that Rule 4.2 provides that an application may only be dismissed if it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Accordingly states the applicant, an application that is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction must be scheduled for a Case Resolution Conference to deal with its merits in accordance with Rule 9.
4This is not so. The Code and the Tribunal's Rules empower the Tribunal to determine the order in which issues are dealt with in the proceeding (Rule 4.3(e)). There is nothing in the Rules that requires that the Tribunal hear a case on its merits prior to considering preliminary matters. The respondents have requested the early dismissal of this Application for a number of reasons set out in a Request for Order during Proceedings. Of necessity such requests will often be dealt with prior to a hearing of the substance of an Application.
5The applicant also states that in the Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal refused to provide grounds for the early dismissal but instead stated that the "grounds are those raised by the respondents in their Request for Order During Proceeding filed on July 2, 2009." The applicant states that he filed the Application with the Tribunal, not York University and accordingly, it is for the Tribunal to "set up the case for the applicant" to meet, not York University.
6Again, this is not so. Although the Rules authorize the Tribunal in certain circumstances to raise issues with the parties, that is not what has occurred in this case. The respondents raised a number of issues in their Request of July 2, 2009. It is those issues that the applicant is required to respond to at the hearing on February 5.
7The applicant states that he received materials from the respondent on January 29, 2010 for the hearing on February 5. The applicant states that the material is voluminous and he will not have time to review it in the week prior to the hearing and accordingly the hearing on February 5, 2010 should be adjourned.
8The applicant finally states that if he receives no other directions from the Tribunal respecting the issues raised by him (and outlined above), he will assume that the hearing is adjourned.
9The adjournment request is denied. The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of all transitional applications and its transitional processes are designed for timely resolution of all applications.
10The only basis upon which an adjournment might be considered would be because of the filing of what the applicant describes as hundreds of pages of documents. I have reviewed the materials filed. I note that one volume is a book of authorities upon which the respondents intend to rely. The other is a brief of six documents. Two of the documents are Applications for Judicial Review of decisions of the Tribunal in relation to this and a related Application. Another is an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal of a decision of the Divisional Court in respect of a judicial review of a Labour Board matter commenced by the applicant. The remaining documents are decisions in respect of various aspects of the ongoing litigation of matters related to this Application and with which the applicant is familiar.
11Based on this review, I am not satisfied that the just, fair and expeditious resolution of this Application requires that the hearing date of February 5, 2010 be adjourned.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of February, 2010.
"Signed by"
__________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair