Theodore Rosenberg v. Town of Richmond Hill and John De Vries, 2010 HRTO 887

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Theodore Rosenberg

Applicant

-and-

Town of Richmond Hill and John De Vries

Respondents

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission

Intervener

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION

Adjudicator: John Manwaring

Date: April 27, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 887

Indexed as: Rosenberg v. Richmond Hill (Town)

APPEARANCES

Theodore Rosenberg, Applicant ) On his own behalf

Town of Richmond Hill ) Antonio Dimilta, Counsel

and John De Vires, Respondents )

Ontario Human Rights Commission ) Prabhu Rajan, Counsel

[1] This is an Application filed pursuant to section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c. H. 19, as amended.

2The Case Resolution Conference (“hearing”) was convened on April 22, 2010.

3The hearing began with a short discussion of the jurisdictional issues raised by the respondents in their written submissions. The respondents stated that they had made all of their arguments in their written submissions and had nothing to add.

4Theodore Rosenberg, the applicant, argued that the arguments made by the respondents were without merit because the requirement that an applicant for a taxi licence submit a Vulnerable Sector Screening Application (“VSSA”) had a direct impact on the ability of an applicant to earn his or her living.

5Given the outcome of the proceeding it is not necessary to determine this issue.

6The applicant then requested an adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that the respondents had not given him all of the documents he had requested. He also asked that the Tribunal order the production of these documents. He argued that, as a result of the respondents’ failure to produce these documents, he could not adequately prepare his arguments.

7The applicant was not able to identify the documents which he claimed the respondents should have produced but argued that he needed documents relating to the objectives and role of the VSSA. He was not able to explain why these documents were arguably relevant to his Application or necessary for the preparation of his submissions.

8The respondents argued that they had produced all documents within their possession and that the applicant had the responsibility to obtain documents in the possession of third parties if they were necessary for his argument.

9The Tribunal refused the request for the adjournment because the applicant was not able to identify the documents he was requesting or to explain the relevance to the issues before the Tribunal.

10The applicant then advised he wished to withdraw his Application, signed a letter confirming this and provided it to the Tribunal and the respondents. I advised the applicant that, if his request for leave to withdraw his Application was granted, it would not be possible to file another application with the Tribunal based on the same facts.

11The applicant indicated that he still wished to withdraw the Application.

12In the circumstances leave to withdraw the Application is granted.