David Vizcaya v. UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and Doron Horowitz, 2012 HRTO 447

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Vizcaya

Applicant

-and-

UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and Doron Horowitz

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 1, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 447

Indexed as: Vizcaya v. UJA Federation of Greater Toronto

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents’ request that its Request for an Order During Proceeding (Form 10), seeking an order to the applicant that he “cease and desist” from violating Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, be dealt with on an urgent basis.

2This matter is scheduled for a hearing on June 13 and 14, 2012. In compliance with Rule 16. 1, the respondents disclosed to the applicant copies of arguably relevant documents. The respondents assert that the applicant has since used these documents in violation of Rule 3.3, which states:

Parties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal

3The respondents assert that the applicant has sent out a letter to another affiliated agency in which he refers to the documents he would have received in disclosure under Rule 16.1. In addition, in this letter, the respondents say the applicant threatens to go to the wider community with his allegations in the letter to the affiliated agency.

4The respondents only filed this Request on February 29, 2012. In normal circumstances, the applicant would be required to file his Response to the Request for Order (Form 11) not later than 14 days after the Request was delivered to him. In reliance on the authority given to the Tribunal under Rule 1.7, I am abridging that time. The applicant is directed to deliver to the parties and file his Response to the Request to the Tribunal by March 5, 2012.

5I am concerned that there may be a subsequent breach of Rule 3.3 based on the material filed by the respondents in their Request. The applicant is ordered to comply with the requirements of Rule 3.3 and not disclose, directly or indirectly, any material provided to him by the respondents in compliance with Rule 16.1 or any other Rule.

6I would also caution the applicant that this Tribunal has found that a breach of Rule 3.3 amounts to an abuse of the Tribunal’s processes. I would note further that the Tribunal has the authority to prevent abuses of its processes up to and including dismissal of the Application. See Ryder v. Ryerson University Students Union 2012 HRTO 173.

ORDER

7In sum, I have made the following directions and order:

a. The time for filing the Response to the respondents’ February 29, 2012 Request for an Order During Proceedings is shortened from 14 days to six days;

b. The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents and file his Response to the Request for an Order by March 5, 2012;

c. The applicant is directed to comply with Rule 3.3. of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by not using documents obtained from the respondents for any purpose other than the proceeding with respect to this Application.

8I am not seized of this matter.