Taranco v. Michedes, 2011 HRTO 32

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Taranco Applicant

-and-

Ontario Human Rights Commission Commission

-and-

Peter Michedes a.k.a. Panayitis Michaelides Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: January 5, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 32 Indexed as: Taranco v. Michedes

1On January 28, 2010, the Tribunal issued a final Decision, 2010 HRTO 128, in respect of this Complaint, which was referred to the Tribunal by the Commission pursuant to section 36(1) of the old Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In its Decision, the Tribunal found that the respondent had infringed the complainant’s right to equal treatment on the basis of age and sex in respect of accommodation, contrary to the provisions of the Code.

Request for Order during Proceedings

2On October 29, 2010, the complainant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking, among other things, to have the name of the respondent “corrected” to “Peter Michedes aka Panayiotis Michaelides” (“the Request”). The stated basis for the Request was that land registry documents “confirmed” that the respondent holds title to two properties as “Panayiotis Michaelides”. The complainant has filed two statements of service indicating that his Request was delivered to the Commission and personally served on the respondent. Neither the Commission nor the respondent responded to the Request.

3Having considered the matter, I do not find it appropriate to amend the respondent’s name pursuant to a Request for an Order during Proceedings. There are no ongoing proceedings before the Tribunal in this matter during which the complainant might make such a Request. The Tribunal finally determined this matter in its Decision of January 28, 2010 and is now functus officio, subject to the common law exceptions to that doctrine and subject to its power of reconsideration, pursuant to s. 45.7 of the Code and Rules 98 to 107 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice Governing Commission-Referred Complaints (“Rules of Practice”).

Reconsideration

4Having said that, in all of the circumstances, I find it appropriate to treat the complainant’s Request for an Order during Proceedings as a Request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision(s) in this matter. Rule 6 of the Rules of Practice provides that:

No proceeding is invalid by reason only of a defect or other irregularity in form.

5I find that, in substance, the complainant’s Request is a Request that the Tribunal reconsider its decision and in particular the name of the respondent against whom orders were made. The fact that the complainant filed his Request as a Request for an Order during Proceedings is merely an irregularity in form and, pursuant to the Rules, does not invalidate the request itself.

6Pursuant to Rule 98 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, a Request for Reconsideration must be made within 30 days of the date of the Decision. However, this is subject to the Tribunal’s power under Rule 14(a) of the Rules of Practice to lengthen or shorten any time limit in the Rules.

7Rule 101 provides that

101. A party who has been served with a request for reconsideration need not file a response with the Tribunal unless the Tribunal directs that a response is required. Where a party is directed to file a response to the request, it must include complete written representations in support of its position.

8I direct the other parties to the proceeding, namely the Commission and the respondent, that a response is required to what I have found in effect to be a Request for Reconsideration by the complainant.

9The complainant bears the onus of establishing that his Request for Reconsideration ought to be granted and he is also required to call evidence and/or make further submissions on whether his request ought to be granted pursuant to the Tribunal’s powers of reconsideration.

10In all of the circumstances, I find it appropriate to convene a half-day in-person hearing for the purpose of hearing evidence and submissions with respect to the following issues:

1. whether the time limit for filing a request for reconsideration ought to be lengthened by the Tribunal in the circumstances of this case;
2. whether the individual who has been found to have infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code was “Panayiotis Michaelides”; and,
3. whether the Tribunal ought to amend the name of the respondent as requested by the complainant having regard to Rule 102 of the Rules of Practice which provide that the Tribunal will reconsider its Decisions only if: a. there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; b. the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; c. the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or d. other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and orders.

11With respect to the factual issue whether the individual who infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code was “Panayiotis Michaelides”, the complainant points to certain land registry documents as support for his assertion that the name of the respondent ought to be changed. One of those land registry documents appears to indicate that, since 1984, “Panayiotis Michaelides” has been one of the owners of the property where the complainant attempted to rent an apartment in April 2007. However, the issue to be determined is not the correct name of the owner of the property in question but whether “Panayiotis” is the correct name of the person who was found to have infringed the complainant’s rights under the Code.

12The complainant should also come to the hearing prepared to call evidence and make submissions on the issue whether the person who has been found to have infringed his rights under the Code was in fact the “owner” of the property where he attempted to rent an apartment and, if so, the basis for his knowledge in that regard.

Opportunity to Make Submissions

13Rule 103 of the Rules of Practice provides that the Tribunal shall not grant a Request for Reconsideration without giving all of the parties an opportunity to make submissions on the Request.

14In order to ensure that the respondent is aware of the Request for Reconsideration and has an opportunity to make submissions on the Request, the complainant is hereby directed to deliver a copy of this Decision to the respondent through personal service. This is necessary because neither the complainant nor the Commission ever satisfied the Tribunal that delivering documents to a particular address would have the effect of bringing such documents to the respondent’s attention (2009 HRTO 696 at para. 8; 2008 HRTO 324 at para. 4-6 and para 11).

15In addition, such documents should be addressed to “Peter Michedes and/or Panayitis Michaelides and/or Panayiotis Michaelides”. According to the Statement of Service filed by the complainant, on or about October 29, 2010, after allegedly discovering that the respondent’s correct name was “Panayiotis”, the complainant continued to personally serve documents on the respondent as “Peter Michedes and/or Panayitis Michaelides.”

Directions to respondent

16In the event that the respondent wishes to make submissions or call evidence regarding whether the Tribunal ought to reconsider its Decision by changing the name of the respondent to “Panayiotis” Michaelides, he is hereby directed to contact the Tribunal in writing within ten (10) days of receiving this Decision to inform the Tribunal that he wishes to make such submissions and to provide the Tribunal with his up-to-date contact information.

17In the event that the respondent is personally served with this Decision and fails to contact the Tribunal as directed above, he will be deemed to have waived his right to make submissions on the Request for Reconsideration and will not be entitled to further notice of the proceedings.

18The decisions referred to above are available online, for free, at www.canlii.org. The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice for Commission-Referred Complaints are available at the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca, under Commission-referred Complaints.