Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2011 HRTO 264

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Abi-Mansour

Applicant

-and-

Ontario College of Teachers, Michael Salvatori, Nick Forte, Errol Hook, Christopher Sach-Anderson, David Leonard and Carolyn Zayid

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: February 8, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 264

Indexed as: Abi-Mansour v. Ontario College of Teachers

1On October 6, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction granting the respondents’ Request for a Summary Hearing. Three particular issues were identified: (i) whether the Application can succeed against the respondent lawyers, who represent an opposing party in litigation; (ii) how there is a reasonable basis the applicant could prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondents’ actions were affected by the grounds he identified (race, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin) or were a reprisal; and (iii) whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success because it is an abuse of process or frivolous and vexatious.

2On November 20, 2010, the Tribunal emailed the applicant requesting him to advise whether he was available on certain dates. He did not reply.

3On January 17, 2011, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Summary Hearing scheduling the summary hearing for February 18, 2011.

4On February 7, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Order asking that the Application be deferred until the conclusion of his disciplinary hearing at the Ontario College of Teachers.

5He states:

When we agreed to schedule the hearing by the end of February I was convinced at that time that the other hearing (College hearing) I am participating in before the Discipline Committee will be concluded by the beginning of December 2010. Yet, unfortunately, that hearing was not finished in December 2010, and its continuation is scheduled on February 15 and 22, 2011.

The applicant says that he requires the delay because (i) he is representing himself in both of these proceedings and most of his time is devoted to the College hearing and (ii) some facts will be clarified during the College hearing.

6The request to defer or adjourn the hearing date is denied. First, the applicant’s statement that he did not expect the College hearing to continue at the time the HRTO Application was scheduled is plainly incorrect, since it was not scheduled until January 2011. Second, in view of the fact that there is a serious issue about whether this Application has no reasonable prospect of success, in particular because it is an abuse of process, it would not be fair to the respondents to delay the matter. Third, had the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s email of November 17, 2011 with his available dates, or requested a different date immediately following the Notice of Summary Hearing in accordance with the Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments, he could have had the date scheduled at a time that was more convenient to him. At this time, when the period for requesting rescheduling has passed, there are no exceptional circumstances that justify an adjournment or deferral.

7The Request is denied and the Summary Hearing will proceed on February 18, 2011.