Biazrov v. Paris Jewellers Ltd., 2012 HRTO 1083

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marina Biazrov Applicant

-and-

Paris Jewellers Ltd. and Jim Crusoe Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: May 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1083 Indexed as: Biazrov v. Paris Jewellers Ltd.

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address two outstanding Requests for Order filed by the parties in early 2012 prior to their attendance at a mediation that did not result in a resolution of all issues before the Tribunal.

2The respondent company, Paris Jewellery Ltd., filed a Request for Order on January 23, 2012 seeking to have the applicant serve the personal respondent with all documents separately as counsel for the respondent company no longer acts for the personal respondent. The respondent company also sought an Order requiring the applicant to file particulars with respect to her allegation that she was wrongfully termination and that she experienced reprisal contrary to the Code. The applicant did not file a Form 11 and the time for her to do so has long since passed.

3She did, however, file a Form 3 (Reply) as well as a Form 10 (Request for Order) on February 17, 2011, all of which she appears to have also served separately to the personal respondent.

4The applicant appended several documents to the Forms 3 and 10, including the letter from the respondent company terminating her employment, and provided her reply to elements of the respondent company's response. Neither of the respondents filed a Form 11 and the time for them to do so has elapsed.

5In my view, an Order requiring the applicant to serve the personal respondent is unnecessary at this juncture, given that she appears to have complied with the Rules of Procedure in that regard since the respondent company filed its Request for Order.

6In respect of the allegations concerning reprisal and termination of employment, there is sufficient information concerning the applicant's position in the documents provided by her over the course of the Application. The Application is amended to include the allegations relating to reprisal and the termination of the applicant's employment by the respondent employer.

7If the respondents wish to amend their Response to address these amendments, they may serve and file their amended Response within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

8The applicant will have a further week to file an amended Reply.

9I am not seized.