Robert MacKenzie v. ZSA Legal Recruitment Limited, 2012 HRTO 1639

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert MacKenzie

Applicant

-and-

ZSA Legal Recruitment Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: August 28, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1639 Indexed as: MacKenzie v. ZSA Legal Recruitment Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert MacKenzie, Applicant Self-represented

ZSA Legal Recruitment Limited, Respondent Neal Sommer, Counsel

Introduction

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"), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of sex.

2In his submissions the applicant claimed that he has made complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada with respect to the conduct of most, if not all, of the respondent's employees allegedly involved in this matter. In a Case Assessment Direction dated July 11, 2012, I directed that the parties deliver and file submissions on whether it would be appropriate to defer this Application in all of the circumstances. The parties have responded and both indicate that the investigation of the applicant's complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada has concluded. The respondent advises that the those complaints have been closed without any findings. Both parties submit that it would not be appropriate to defer the Application.

3I am satisfied in the circumstances that it would not be appropriate to defer the Application and it should proceed to the next step in the Tribunal process, a one-day oral hearing in Toronto.

Direction

4As I pointed out in the CAD above, in cases where there are competing accounts of what actually happened it may not be possible to determine whether there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed without hearing some evidence, and accordingly in the summary hearing process where no evidence is tendered these issues sometimes cannot be resolved. However, as the Tribunal discussed in Pellerin v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, 2011 HRTO 1777, this does not necessarily mean that the next step is a full hearing. The Code and the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure give the Tribunal broad powers to structure hearings to ensure fair, just and expeditious adjudication of Applications.

5In this case the parties' positions are clearly set out in the pleadings. The parties have both filed and have relied on a number of contemporaneous emails between them. There is no apparrant need for further disclosure in all of the circumstances. Similarly, the parties' positions on the facts of what is alleged to have occurred are set out. Accordingly the normal requirements for pre-hearing production can be waived in these circumstances.

6I am not seized of this case.