HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeff Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: October 2, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1872 Indexed as: Wilson v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeff Wilson, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General, Respondent Heather McIvor, 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 on the basis of race, ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation and reprisal in the provision of goods and services. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request for an extension of time to deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a witness list, witness statements and copies of the documents, he intends to rely on at the hearing scheduled for November 1, 2012.

BACKGROUND

2On April 12, 2012 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing (the “Notice”) scheduling the applicant’s hearing for November 1, 2012. The Notice also apprised the parties of the requirement under the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to disclose to each other a list of arguably relevant documents and copies of these documents by May 3, 2012. The Notice further directs the parties to disclose and file with the Tribunal the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing along with their list of witnesses and witness statements by September 17, 2012, 45 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

3On September 12, 2012 the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) with the Tribunal asking for an extension of time to file his documents and witness information by October 1, 2012. The applicant submitted that he was seeking the assistance of the Ontario Human Rights Legal Support Centre (“OHRLSC”) to prepare the required hearing materials and was having difficulty arranging for this assistance. The applicant submitted that the late disclosure of his documents and witness information would not prejudice the respondent as the respondent would still have four weeks after October 1, 2012 to prepare for the hearing. The respondent did not file a response to the applicant’s request. The Tribunal granted the extension request.

4On September 30, 2012 the applicant filed a further RFOP with the Tribunal asking for an extension to file his hearing materials until October 9, 2012. The applicant again submitted that he was having difficulty in arranging for assistance from the OHRLSC noting that the OHRLSC had cancelled a scheduled meeting and that this meeting was rescheduled for October 5, 2012. The applicant submits that this further delay is essentially outside of his control. He submits that while the respondent may be inconvenienced by this further delay in the provision of documents and witness information it will still have time (three weeks) to adequately prepare for the hearing and hence will not be prejudiced by this further extension request.

5On October 1, 2012 the respondent filed a response to the applicant’s RFOP opposing his request for a further extension.

6The respondent submits that the applicant has had over five months since the issuing of the Notice to obtain any assistance he might need in order to meet the Tribunal’s disclosure requirements. The respondent submits that the applicant has not provided any documents to date including providing the respondent with copies of arguably relevant documents. The respondent submits that the applicant had previous legal counsel to assist him and is now seeking further legal advice and that this delay in obtaining legal advice is not a legitimate reason for a second extension of time. The respondent submits that it would be prejudiced if the extension request was granted as it would leave the respondent insufficient time (three weeks) to prepare for the hearing including time to address the applicant’s intended evidence with its witnesses.

7There is information before the Tribunal to indicate that the respondent disclosed its arguably relevant documents to the applicant, as required. However, the Tribunal has not, as of this date, received the respondent’s witness list, witness statements and documents the respondent intends to rely on at the hearing that were required by September 17, 2012.

DECISION

8The applicant’s request for an extension until October 9, 2012 is granted.

9The applicant has not pursued his obligations in preparing for a hearing in a timely manner. He has left his efforts to obtain further legal assistance far too late. He, alone, is responsible for his present circumstances. However, the respondent, too, has failed to meet its disclosure requirements. It may well be that the respondent has been waiting to see the applicant’s disclosure materials and to assess the nature of the applicant’s case. However, under these circumstances I find the respondent’s submissions that it would be prejudiced by the late disclosure of the respondent’s materials less persuasive.

10The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it. I am of the view that what would be fair and just and indeed expeditious would be to require both parties to have all their documents, witness lists and witnesses disclosed to each other and filed with the Tribunal no later than October 9, 2012. The applicant should be prepared to provide this information by October 9, 2011 regardless of whether he has a meeting with OHRLSC on October 5, 212 or whether OHRLSC agrees to or is able to provide him with assistance in preparing and submitting the required information by October 9, 2012.

11The parties are alerted to the fact that failure to meet the October 9, 2012 deadline may result in the Tribunal refusing the parties to disclose documents or call witnesses at the hearing.