Sinem Ketenci v. Yeates School of Graduate Studies at Ryerson University, 2012 HRTO 415

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sinem Ketenci

Applicant

-and-

Yeates School of Graduate Studies at Ryerson University

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 28, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 415

Indexed as: Ketenic v. Yeates School of Graduate Studies at Ryerson University

1In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated November 8, 2011, the Tribunal directed that this matter proceed by way of a summary hearing. The Tribunal directed that the respondent need not file a Response at this stage of the proceeding.

2In the CAD, the Tribunal identified the issue to be determined at the summary hearing as follows:

In this case, the issue will be whether, assuming the allegations to be true, the applicant’s allegations may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation. In particular, the parties shall be prepared to address whether the Application raises the ground of creed and whether assuming the ground of creed is engaged, there is a reasonable prospect the applicant can establish discrimination.

3The hearing has been scheduled for March 19, 2012.

4On February 10, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) in which she seeks to add a party to the Application and to amend the Application to include additional particulars, an additional proposed witness and additional supporting documents. However, from the applicant’s Request, it is not clear whom she seeks to add as a party. Neither the Request nor the revised Application attached to the Request identify any additional proposed party.

5On February 12, 2012, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal and copied the applicant. The respondent consents to the proposed amendments providing additional particulars. Counsel argues that the request to add witnesses and supporting documents is premature, given the nature of the legal issue to be determined at the summary hearing. He states that as no proposed additional respondent has been identified, he is unable to respond to this aspect of the applicant’s Request.

DECISION

6The Request is granted in part:

a. In the circumstances, given the respondent’s position and the early stage at which the request to amend the Application is made, I find that it is appropriate to allow the applicant to amend the Application to include further particulars.

b. At this stage of the proceeding, I make no finding as to the relevance or admissibility of the documents filed by the applicant in support of her Application. To the extent that the applicant seeks to rely on documents for the purposes of the summary hearing, the Tribunal may provide additional direction at the summary hearing. I note that, for the purposes of the summary hearing and in accordance with the CAD, the Tribunal will assume the applicant’s allegations to be true.

c. I find that the Request to add a witness is premature. If necessary, the Tribunal may address this issue following the summary hearing.

7I am not seized.