Rosenberg v. Ombudsman, 2012 HRTO 142

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rudy Rosenberg Applicant

-and-

Ombudsman Ontario Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: January 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 142

Indexed as: Rosenberg v. Ombudsman

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”). A summary hearing teleconference is scheduled to take place on February 10, 2012, to hear submissions from the parties as to whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

2The applicant has filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP). In one, he seeks an Order from the Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to provide what he describes as “:particulars, production of documents and reasons and law/facts causing HRTO decision for hearing”. In the second, he seeks an Order compelling the respondent to provide “particulars, production of documents and all internal documentation related to Rudy or Robert Rosenberg”.

3Not unsurprisingly, the respondent has not filed a Form 11 with respect to the first RFOP. The respondent opposes the Order sought in the second RFOP on the basis that the Order requested is vague, some information requested is protected by provisions of the Ombudsman Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.6, as it relates to third parties and, finally, that it is premature.

4Sections 40 and 41 of the Code provide that the Tribunal can adopt procedures and practices provided for in its Rules of Procedure and otherwise, which offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of an Application. The upcoming teleconference has been scheduled in accordance with the direction in the Case Assessment Direction (CAD), made pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The CAD clearly indicates that the teleconference is being scheduled on the Tribunal’s own initiative. The first RFOP, seeking an Order compelling the Tribunal to provide written materials, caselaw and a justification supporting the procedural ruling in the CAD, is denied.

5The CAD clearly indicates that if a party wishes to rely on documents and case law, they must deliver them to each other and file them with the Tribunal 14 days in advance of the teleconference. The second RFOP, seeking production, particulars and all materials in the possession of the respondent relating to the applicant and a third party, is also denied as premature as Rule 19A.2 indicates that Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings.

6The teleconference will proceed as scheduled. I am not seized.