HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Theodore Rosenberg
Applicant
-and-
The Corporation of the Town of Richmond Hill and John DeVries
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Rosenberg v. Richmond Hill (Town)
1This is an Application filed on December 29, 2008 pursuant to section 53(3) of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a request that the Tribunal inquire into the conduct of the respondents and a request to suspend the applicant’s obligation to deliver and file the materials he intends to rely upon at the Case Resolution Conference scheduled for April 22, 2010.
2The applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal, dated February 26, 2010 stating that he was in receipt of mail from the respondents that was unsealed or opened. This has allegedly occurred on more than one occasion. The applicant has apparently requested that the respondents not communicate directly with him by mail and has made arrangements with a third party to receive mail on his behalf. The applicant has also apparently received mail at the Post Office. The most recent allegation with respect to mail being retrieved unsealed or opened was in respect of mail received at the Post Office. The respondents state that they have made efforts to ensure that anything sent to the applicant is sealed and deny any improper behaviour. The applicant requests that the Tribunal conduct an inquiry into the respondents’ behaviour and that the timelines for the applicant’s production of documents and other materials be suspended pending this inquiry.
3The only authority the Tribunal has to order an inquiry is provided by section 44 of the Code:
44(1) At the request of a party to an application under this Part, the Tribunal may appoint a person to conduct an inquiry under this section if the Tribunal is satisfied that,
(a) an inquiry is required in order to obtain evidence;
(b) the evidence obtained may assist in achieving a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application; and
(c) it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances.
4The Tribunal has not yet exercised the power granted in this section of the Code and it is uncertain in what circumstances such an inquiry will be appropriate. However, the language of the section makes it clear that the inquiry must be related to evidence necessary to a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits or subject matter of the Application. I am not satisfied based on the material filed that an inquiry such as that contemplated by this section is required in these circumstances. It is not at all clear how the allegations of the applicant relate to merits or subject matter of the Application. The Request that the Tribunal inquire into the conduct of the respondents is denied.
5The applicant’s request that his obligation to deliver and file documents be suspended is denied. Whether or not mail being delivered to the applicant is arriving opened or unsealed should have no bearing on his ability to deliver his materials to the respondents. The applicant does not allege that he is not receiving materials being sent to him, rather the allegation is that someone is opening the mail or that is being sent unsealed. It is evidently a matter of some concern to the applicant however, as set out in the material, it does not have any bearing on this proceeding.
6The respondents have treated the applicant’s submission as a request to adjourn the Case Resolution Conference scheduled for April 22, 2010. The respondents do not oppose the adjournment of the merits of the Application but state that the current date be held for purposes of dealing with the Request for Order flied by the respondents on February 17, 2010. In light of my conclusions above, there is no need to adjourn the hearing and it should proceed as scheduled. The applicant should file his responding materials to the respondents’ Request on or before March 22, 2010.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of March, 2010.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair