Sayed-Zada v. Renin Corp., 2011 HRTO 2075

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

S. Masoom Sayed-Zada

Applicant

-and-

Renin Corp.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: November 15, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2075

Indexed as: Sayed-Zada v. Renin Corp.

Written SUbmissions

S. Massom Sayed-Zada, Applicant ) Glenroy K. Bastien, Counsel

Renin Corp., Respondent ) Matthew R. Vella, Counsel

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings by the applicant to amend the Application. The Request is denied, because the proposed amended Application does not have proper particulars – details of what allegedly occurred, as required by the Tribunal’s Rules and fairness.

2The Application, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), was filed with the Tribunal on June 30, 2010 and delivered to the respondent on August 6, 2010. At the time of filing the Application, the applicant was self-represented. The respondent filed a Response on October 19, 2010. On January 9, 2011 counsel wrote to the Tribunal advising he was now representing the applicant. On January 14, 2011, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing, which was extremely detailed. On January 26, 2011, the applicant, through his counsel, filed a Response to the Request for Summary Hearing, which contained various changes in position and theory of the case. On April 13, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction which indicated, among other things, that all outstanding issues, including the Request for Summary Hearing, would be dealt with following mediation, if necessary. On August 17, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting the changes to the applicant’s position and directing that the applicant file a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the Application, and attaching a copy of the proposed revised Application.

3On August 30, 2011, the applicant, through his counsel, filed a Request for Order During Proceedings and a proposed revised Application. In support of the Request, the applicant states as follows:

Counsel has been retained and re-drafted content of Application in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the respondent. Counsel has clarified the claims made by the applicant in responding to the respondent’s Request for an Order.

4The respondent opposes the Request to amend on various grounds, but I need deal with only one. The respondent argues that the proposed amendments do not comply with Rule 6.2. I agree. Rule 6.2 reads as follows:

A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and the related supplemental form(s) and Form 4 (if applicable), and must set out all the facts that form the substance of the allegations of discrimination including the circumstances of what happened, where and when it happened, and the names of person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have violated the Applicant’s rights under the Code.

5It would not be appropriate to permit an amended Application that does not comply with the Tribunal’s requirement for a detailed explanation of the facts upon which a party is relying. This is not merely a technical concern; it would be unfair to the respondent to require it to attempt to respond to such vague allegations. The proposed Application alleges discrimination and overt harassment on the basis of multiple grounds over an extended period. In relation to many allegations, the applicant does not state when the alleged discrimination/ harassment occurred, where it occurred, who carried out or was involved in the alleged discrimination/ harassment or provide other identifying information other than vague references. In these circumstances, the respondent cannot properly defend against the allegations and the Tribunal cannot engage in active case management, which is part of the Tribunal’s process, and which requires a detailed understanding of each party’s case.

6It would not be appropriate to grant leave to amend an Application to a form that does not comply with the Tribunal’s requirements for detailed allegations and explanations of each party’s position. Accordingly, the Request for Order is denied.

7In the circumstances, a case management conference is appropriate before further steps in this case are taken. Each party must attend prepared to explain fully its theory of the case and opinion on the order in which and method by which outstanding matters should be dealt with.

ORDER

8The applicant’s Request for Order to amend the Application is denied. The Registrar is requested to schedule a case management conference call.