HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Azhar Bhatti

Applicant

-and-

Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation and Sam Dhaliwal

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 17, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 585

Indexed as: Bhatti v. Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation

[1] This Interim Decision is further to two earlier Interim Decisions.

[2] The Application named Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation as a corporate respondent. The contact person for the corporate respondent is David Pomer. The Application named Sam Dhaliwal as a personal respondent. The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability.

[3] A hearing in this matter was scheduled for August 17 and 18, 2009. The applicant and Mr. Pomer appeared. Mr. Dhaliwal did not appear. The hearing was adjourned for the reasons set out in Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1366. In that decision, I made the following orders:

A copy of this decision will be sent to Mr. Bhatti, Mr. Dhaliwal and to Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation. The copy to Mr. Dhaliwal will be sent using the contact information provided by Mr. Pomer. The parties are reminded of Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which require a party to notify the Tribunal and all other parties of any change in their contact information as soon as possible.

Mr. Bhatti, Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation, and Mr. Dhaliwal may, within three weeks of the date of this decision, make submissions respecting how the Tribunal should now deal with the Application. The parties may also submit any documents that may assist the Tribunal in understanding the relationship of the parties in the period from June 15, 2007 to January 2008 and currently, including but not limited to the issue of who has authority with respect to Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation. In addition to any of the other issues identified, Mr. Dhaliwal should address in his submissions his reasons, if any, for his failure to attend on the scheduled hearing date. The applicant has indicated his intention to withdraw this application as against Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation. If he wishes to do so he should confirm his intention in writing to the Tribunal with a copy to the parties. Documents and submissions must be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to each of the other parties.

[4] After the Interim Decision was issued, Mr. Dhaliwal made submissions. He advised that he is no longer associated in any way with Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation and that he is “legally restricted from handling any matters surrounding Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation.” He indicated that this has been confirmed by an Order of the Court and he has provided a copy of an Order of Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court, dated June 23, 2009.

[5] No submissions were received from the applicant or the corporate respondent.

[6] I issued a second Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 210, dated January 28, 2010. It stated that the Tribunal required submissions:

The Tribunal requires submissions from Mr. Pomer and the applicant regarding how the Tribunal should now deal with the Application. The applicant must confirm whether he wishes to pursue the Application, and, if so, against whom. If the applicant wishes to withdraw the Application against Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation, he must file a completed Form 9 Request to Withdraw and deliver it to the other parties and the Tribunal.

Whether or not the applicant wishes to withdraw the Application against Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation, Mr. Pomer must clarify who has authority with respect to Pomer and Boccia Professional Corporation and who would be liable in the event that the Application was heard and the applicant was successful.

Any submissions must be filed with the Tribunal and filed with the other parties within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision. If no submissions are received from the applicant by that time the Application may be deemed to have been abandoned.

[7] The applicant filed a Form 9 (Request to Withdraw) indicating that he wished to withdraw the Application as against David Pomer, but not as against Sam Dhaliwal. However, he subsequently sent a letter to the Tribunal dated February 14, 2010, stating that he no longer wished to withdraw the Application as against David Pomer because Mr. Pomer had not fulfilled the terms of a verbal agreement.

[8] The hearing in this matter will be rescheduled for a one-day hearing. Notice of the hearing will be sent to the applicant, the corporate respondent, David Pomer, and Sam Dhaliwal. The parties should be prepared to address all of the issues that have been raised in the earlier Interim Decisions as well as the merits of the Application.

Dated at Toronto, this 17^th^ day of March, 2010.

“Signed by”

Brian Cook

Vice-chair```