Wozenilek v. The Book Shelf of Guelph Limited, 2012 HRTO 1980

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mathew Wozenilek

Applicant

-and-

The Book Shelf of Guelph Limited o/a The Bookshelf

and Guelph Jazz Festival & Colloquium

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: October 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1980

Indexed as: Wozenilek v. The Book Shelf of Guelph Limited

INTRODUCTION

Background

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”). At the heart of the Application is the applicant’s allegation that he was unable to access parts of a building in which the respondent book store, The Book Shelf of Guelph Limited (the “Book Shelf”), is located.

2In his Application, the applicant identified two events in particular: an art auction fundraiser held by the Guelph Jazz Festival and a book reading where a local author, Nicholas Ruddock, read from a newly published work. In addition to the Book Shelf, the applicant originally named as respondents the Guelph Jazz Festival, Sorbara Law (because it contributed money to the Guelph Jazz Festival), Nicholas Ruddock and Random House (publisher of respondent Ruddock’s book).

3A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address various Requests for Order during Proceedings (RFOPs) made by a number of the parties to this Application. Following the hearing, the parties were directed to file additional written requests and submissions in writing, in accordance with timelines outlined during the course of the preliminary hearing.

4An Interim Decision was issued on February 7, 2012, 2012 HRTO 264, dismissing the Application as against a number of the named respondents, leaving only the Bookshelf and the Guelph Jazz Festival as respondents.

5In addition, the Interim Decision dealt with a request to dismiss the Application pursuant to section 45.1 because the respondents argued that the substance of the matters before the Tribunal had been addressed in OHRC File No: NMYS-3VTHAS. The request for dismissal was denied on the basis that the Commission investigation in OHRC File No: NMYS-3VTHAS of a complaint made ten years ago by a complainant entirely unconnected to this applicant, involving allegations that did not necessarily address all the accessibility issues raised by this Application, addressing circumstances that existed over ten years ago, which was dealt with before referral to the Tribunal and about which no information is publicly available, could not be seen to have addressed the substance of the matters at issue in this Application.

6Finally, the Interim Decision dated February 7, 2012, and a subsequent Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 451, ordered the production and delivery of OHRC File No: NMYS-3VTHAS to the parties and to the Tribunal, as it appeared that the contents of the Commission’s file were arguably relevant to these proceedings.

7The Application has now been set down for a two day hearing in March 2013.

8The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address numerous Requests for Order that have been filed by the respondent Bookshelf and a request for an extension of time to exchange arguably relevant documents by the Guelph Jazz Festival.

Requests made by the Bookshelf

9On April 11, 2012, the Book Shelf requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry and appears to also seek to have the previous decision concerning dismissal on the basis of s. 45.1 revisited.

10A subsequent Request for Order during Proceedings (RFOP) filed on August 1, 2012, renews the request that the s. 45.1 issue be revisited following receipt of the materials in the OHRC file, arguing that the contents are determinative of the issues in dispute.

11Finally, a third RFOP, filed October 1, 2010, seeks an extension of time to exchange arguably relevant documents and asks for a decision on previous RFOPs.

12Although not characterized as requests for reconsideration, in essence that is what is being sought in the portions of the RFOPs filed by the respondent Bookshelf asking to have the s. 45.1 issue revisited.

13The Tribunal’s Interim Decision dated February 7, 2012, considered the arguments advanced by the parties and denied the request for dismissal pursuant to s. 45.1. As a result, the Application is proceeding to a full hearing on the merits.

14The Tribunal power to reconsider its decisions is limited to “final” decisions. The Rules do not define what is meant by “final” but the Tribunal, in Sigrist and Carson v. London District School Board et al., 2008 HRTO 34, in considering this question ruled as follows:

As a general principle, having regard to the approach taken in other forums as well as the above discussion, it is reasonable to view a “final decision” as one that disposes of some or all of the central issues in the complaint as between the parties.

15I do not find that an interim procedural ruling refusing to dismiss this Application on the basis of s. 45.1 of the Code is a “final” decision that disposes of any of the central issues in the Application as between the parties. There is no final decision to reconsider and, consequently, there is no basis on which I can grant the respondent Book Shelf’s requests on that point.

16The respondent Book Shelf has asked for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry but provided no basis for the Tribunal to engage the type of process described in section 44 of the Code, which is a separate and distinct procedure from the processing of this Application in the normal course.

17The Tribunal therefore denies the request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry.

18The hearing into this matter is scheduled to take place in March 2013. Although the applicant objects to the respondent being granted an extension of time to exchange arguably relevant material, given the length of time before the hearing is scheduled to take place and the brief extension of time sought, the respondent Book Shelf’s request for an extension of time is granted.

Request for Extension of Time made by the Guelph Jazz Festival

19The Guelph Jazz Festival sought an extension of time to exchange arguably relevant material. As a not-for-profit organization, it argues that its resources are limited and, because of the timing of the festival, it does not have staff available to gather materials to satisfy its disclosure obligations until after the deadline.

20For the reasons provided in paragraph 18 (above), the request for an extension of time is granted.

ORDER

21The respondent Book Shelf’s request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is denied.

22The respondent Book Shelf’s request that a further decision be issued on its request for dismissal of the Application pursuant to s. 45.1 is denied.

23The requests for extensions of time made by both respondents are granted. The parties are directed to comply with their obligation to exchange all arguably relevant materials within three (3) weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.