Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Amindra Wanigasekera
Applicant
-and-
Hydro One Brampton Networks Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Wanigasekera v. Hydro One Brampton Networks
1This Application was filed June 26, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour and age.
2This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Reconsideration ("Request") of Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 2528 filed by the respondent on December 23, 2010, and other procedural matters related to the further processing of this Application.
Reconsideration
3The respondent seeks reconsideration of the Interim Decision which adjourned the hearing on the basis of what were said by the applicant to be significant unresolved production issues. The hearing, which was scheduled to begin on January 6, 2011, was adjourned for that reason.
4The respondent states that the applicant's submissions in support of the adjournment request were disingenuous and misleading. The respondent did not state, prior to the Interim Decision being made, that all of the documents sought by the applicant had been produced or did not exist.
5In correspondence to the parties dated December 24, 2010, the Tribunal advised that the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications ("Rules") did not contemplate the reconsideration of an interim decision. The Tribunal further advised that I was on vacation and could not deal with the matter until January 4, 2011. On December 29, 2010 the respondent reiterated its Request.
6Although there is some basis to the respondent's concerns about the state of the production issues when the Request was made, the Tribunal's Rules do not contemplate the reconsideration of an interim decision. A decision adjourning a hearing is not a final decision in any sense, and accordingly there is no basis to reconsider the decision. More practically, at this stage, given the shortness of time before the hearing, it would simply not be practical to begin the hearing on January 6. Accordingly the Request for Reconsideration is denied.
Production Issues
7The applicant had requested a large number of documents in his Request for Order During Proceedings filed on December 20, 2010. In its Response to the Request for Order filed by the respondent on December 23, 2010, the respondent states that it has produced all of the documents requested, or if they have not it is because they do not exist or are not in the respondent's possession. The Tribunal will not make an Order for production of documents that have been produced or do not exist.
Other Issues
8The hearing of this matter should proceed as expeditiously as possible. The Tribunal is available to begin the hearing on the following dates:
January 31, 2011
February 1, 3 and 4, 2011
February 14 and 15, 2011
March 7, 9 and 10, 2011
March 14, 15, 16 and 17, 2011
9The parties will confirm their availability on two (2) of the above dates within five (5) days of the date of this Interim Decision.
10I am seized of this Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of January, 2011.
"signed by"_______
David Muir
Vice-chair