Basic v. Home Medical Equipment Ltd., 2011 HRTO 1249

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic

Applicant

-and-

Home Medical Equipment Ltd. and Don Hovis

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 29, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1249

Indexed as: Basic v. Home Medical Equipment Ltd.

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in goods and services on the basis of disability.

2On the basis of the Application, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The respondents were not required to file a Response but were required to provide documents relating their interactions with the applicant.

3The summary hearing was held on March 2, 2011. Following the summary hearing, I issued an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 724, and concluded:

The determination that a summary hearing was appropriate in this case was based only on the information contained in the Application. During the summary hearing, the applicant provided further details in respect to his allegations of discrimination which were not apparent from the Application and that provide a theory that potentially shows a link between the events and the applicant’s disability.

The purpose of a summary hearing is to determine if the Application should be dismissed because there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. If the Application is not dismissed following a summary hearing, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application. In this case, I am not satisfied that the Application can be dismissed on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of success. This does not mean that I am making a finding that the Application will succeed or that there is a reasonable prospect that it will succeed. It only means that the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

The applicant must set out in writing the additional issues and allegations raised during the summary hearing and provide it to the Tribunal and the respondents within 14 days of this Interim Decision. The respondents then must file a Response to the Application and any additional issues and allegations set out by the applicant within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Pursuant to the earlier Case Assessment Direction, the respondents must file any documents pertaining to their interactions with the applicant in September 2009.

4The Interim Decision was dated April 14, 2011, so the applicant was required to file information about the additional issues and allegations by April 28, 2011. Nothing was heard from either party.

5On June 16, 2011, I issued a Case Assessment Direction which stated in part:

The applicant is directed to immediately clarify his intentions with respect to the Application and to explain why he has not complied with the directions in the Interim Decision.

If the Tribunal does not hear from the applicant within two weeks of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.

6On June 17, 2011, the respondents filed a Response and provided the documents that they had earlier been directed to provide.

7The applicant sent an email on June 18, 2011, asking for a time extension. He advised that he is dealing with “an urgent out of Province legal matter” that prevents him from providing the additional information as directed in the Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction. He further indicated that he was unable to provide a date by which he could provide the information.

8The respondents sent an email on June 20, 2011, objecting to the applicant’s time extension request.

9Also on June 20, 2011, the respondent sent an email asking that Frank Malta be added as a personal respondent. According to the applicant, Mr. Malta is the Regional Canadian Sales Manager for Handicare Canada Inc.

10Information about any additional respondents, including their relationship with the allegations in the Application, was part of the information that the applicant was required to provide pursuant to the earlier Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction. The applicant has not provided such information and there is no basis at present to add any other respondent. The applicant has asked for an indefinite extension of time.

11The applicant’s request for an indefinite extension of time is denied. He has not provided an adequate explanation for why he cannot fulfil the requirements of the earlier Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction. The applicant’s request to add Mr. Malta as a respondent is also denied because he has failed to provide the information required.

12I am prepared to grant a one-week time extension. The applicant must file the information required of him in the earlier Interim Decision and Case Assessment Direction by July 7, 2011. Failure to do so may cause the Tribunal to dismiss the Application as abandoned.