HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Symbah Ruremesha
Applicant
-and-
Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada, Paula Lansky,
Michael Morris and Robin Layng
Respondents
Interim decIsion
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Ruremesha v. Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada
SUBMISSIONS
Symbah Ruremesha, Applicant ) Marty Rabinovitch, Counsel
Travelers Guarantee Company of Canada, )
Paula Lansky, Michael Morris, ) Karen M. Sargeant, Counsel
and Robin Layng, Respondents )
1This is an Application filed on April 5, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and age. The respondents have filed a common response denying the allegations in the Application. In Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 2233 the Tribunal granted the applicant’s Request to amend the Application to include allegations of reprisal.
2This Interim Decision deals with the summary hearing ordered by the Tribunal and a Request for an Order During Proceedings for the production of documents (the “Request for Order”) which was filed by the applicant.
Summary Hearing
3The Tribunal granted the respondents’ request for a Summary Hearing by Case Assessment Direction dated July 12, 2011 which was heard on March 5, 2012 via telephone conference. The services of a French-English Interpreter were made available to the parties. I note that the applicant has previously advised the Tribunal that he does not require written correspondence to be sent to him in French.
4During the course of the hearing the applicant advised the Tribunal that he was withdrawing his allegations of discrimination on the basis of age.
5In light of the amendment to the Application which occurred after the summary hearing was scheduled in this matter, in my view this application raises issues of fact and credibility that will have to be determined at a hearing. I therefore cannot find that this Application has no reasonable prospect of success. In the circumstances herein I find that it would not be appropriate to give further reasons. I note that Rule 19.A.6 states:
Where the Tribunal decides not to dismiss an Application following a summary hearing, it need not give reasons.
Request for Production
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, there is no reason to compel the respondents’ to produce any documents at this time. The Tribunal notes that Rules 16 deals with the obligations of parties to deliver and file documents, and that arguably relevant documents must be exchanged 21 days after the issuance of the Notice of Hearing. There are no special circumstances in this case and I therefore agree with the respondent that the Request for production is premature.
Order
6The Tribunal Orders the following:
a. The Application, except for the allegations of age discrimination, shall proceed; and
b. The applicant’s Request for production of documents is denied.
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of May, 2011.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair