Joel Rocha v. Metro Ontario Inc. and Rachid Abou-Hawach, 2011 HRTO 1924

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Joel Rocha Applicant

-and-

Metro Ontario Inc. and Rachid Abou-Hawach Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: October 25, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1924 Indexed as: Rocha v. Metro Ontario Inc.

1This is an Application made under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended. The hearing in this matter is set for October 28, 2011.

2This Interim Decision addresses a Request for Order during Proceedings (“Request”) from the respondents seeking the dismissal of the Application for abuse of process. The basis for the Request is that the applicant has failed to comply with the disclosure requirements set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”).

3Rules 16 and 17 require the parties to send all arguably relevant documents to each other. In addition, they are to send to each other, as well as the Tribunal, copies of documents they wish to rely on at the hearing, a list of witnesses and statements describing the witnesses’ intended testimony. Some of these requirements must be met no later than 21 days after the Confirmation of Notice Hearing (“Notice”) is issued; some no later than 45 days prior to the day of the hearing. Both deadlines have now passed. The respondents have complied with the disclosure requirements. As of the date of the Request, September 26, 2011, the applicant has not complied with the requirements. In his Reply to the Request, the applicant indicates that “there are no documents” and there may be a witness if she is willing to testify.

4Rule 5.6 of the Rules states that when a party fails to deliver materials to another party as required by the Rules the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material or may take any other actions it considers appropriate. Rules 16 and 17 together with Rule 5.6 are meant to ensure that parties know about any documents that are relevant to their case, and also what documents and witnesses they may face at the hearing.

5This is not the case of a self-represented applicant without experience in the Tribunal’s processes. The applicant retained a representative who practices in the field and should be well versed in the Tribunal’s Rules, requirements and jurisprudence. While the Tribunal’s procedures are less formal than a court’s, this informality should not be construed to mean that parties may take a casual attitude towards complying with the Rules.

6While I am not prepared to dismiss the Application for abuse of process at this stage of the proceedings, I wish to emphasize that failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 may result in the Tribunal refusing permission to introduce documents or evidence of witnesses that have not been disclosed in accordance with Rules 16 and 17.