Amindra Wanigasekera v. Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc., 2010 HRTO 2528

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Amindra Wanigasekera Applicant

-and-

Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2528 Indexed as: Wanigasekera v. Hydro One Brampton Networks

1This Application was filed June 26, 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 discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour and age.

2This Interim Decision deals with a request for an adjournment on the basis that there remain significant production issues outstanding which militate against the hearing of this matter proceeding as scheduled on January 6, 2011. The applicant states that the production requests made in a Request for Order During Proceeding filed with the Tribunal on December 17, 2010 are all arguably relevant and he would be prejudiced in having to begin his case without having them beforehand. The applicant concedes that the timing is unfortunate but that these requests have been outstanding since January 2010 but have been held in abeyance because of the uncertainty respecting the scope of the Application which was only finally determined in Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2356 dated November 29, 2010.

3The respondent objects to the adjournment stating that the hearing dates were agreed in May 2010 and that the applicant has had several years to prepare his case. The respondent did not state that it was able to immediately respond positively to the applicant's production requests.

4The adjournment request is granted. I agree that it is important that the production issues be resolved prior to the applicant beginning his case. The timing is unfortunate and the applicant does bear some responsibility for that in not having filed his final responding submissions on the scope issues in a timely fashion thereby delaying the Interim Decision. However in all the circumstances the potential prejudice to the applicant in proceeding without these issues resolved significantly outweighs any potential prejudice to the respondent in a further short delay. I have also considered the production requests made by the applicant and while it would be inappropriate at this stage to comment in a definitive way on any of them, the respondent having not responded to the Request, a review of them suggests that some but not all are likely to be found to be arguably relevant.

5At this point these documents to the extent that they exist are largely in the possession of the respondent and given the timing of the request and the time of year it seems unlikely that the production request can even be responded to prior to the hearing dates. In all of the circumstances I am persuaded that the most fair, just and expeditious manner of proceeding is to deal with the production issues prior to the hearing beginning.

6The applicant has suggested that the hearing dates not be cancelled but that they be used for the purposes of oral argument on the production issues and mediation of the Application. The respondent has not responded to either suggestion. It does not appear to me necessary to convene a hearing for oral argument on relatively straightforward production issues, however if the parties wish to attend for the purpose of mediation they may make such a request of the Tribunal at any time and an effort will be made to accommodate such a request.

7I am seized.