Potrzebowski v. Holub, 2012 HRTO 49

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ursula Potrzebowski

Applicant

-and-

Petr Holub

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: January 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 49

Indexed as: Potrzebowski v. Holub

1This Application was filed with the Tribunal under s. 34(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (“the Code”), by Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. on behalf of Ursula Potrzebowski. The Application alleges that the respondent, a member of the board of directors at a condominium where Ms Potrzebowski worked as a property manager, discriminated against and/or harassed Ms Potrzebowski on the basis of her Polish origin and ancestry. The respondent denies the allegations.

2On January 3, 2012, the Tribunal received two Requests for an Order during Proceedings (Form 10), one from Wilson Blanchard Management Inc., and a nearly identical one from Ursula Potrzebowski (“the Requests”). The Requests seek an order from the Tribunal removing Wilson Blancard Management Inc. as a party to the proceeding and allowing Ms Potrzebowski to be added as a party to the proceeding (i.e. the applicant) and be permitted to continue with the Application on her own behalf. The reason given for the Requests is that Ms Potrzebowski is no longer employed by Wilson Blancard Management Inc. and does not require her former employer to pursue the Application on her behalf.

3The respondent was directed to respond to the Requests by January 9, 2012, failing which the Tribunal would decide them based on the material already before it. The respondent has not responded to the Requests.

4I can see no reason to deny the Requests. First of all, the respondent does not oppose the Requests. Moreover, permitting Ms Potrzebowski to continue with the Application in her own right does not change the nature of the issues to be determined by the Tribunal or the remedies sought; and I cannot see how the respondent will be prejudiced if I grant the Requests. The requested change is actually technical in nature insofar as Ms Potrzebowski could have the brought the Application on her own behalf at the time it was originally filed, but apparently chose to have Wilson Blancard Management Inc. file it on her behalf instead.

5The Requests to have Wilson Blanchard Management Inc. removed as a party to the proceeding and to have Ursula Potrzebowski added as the applicant are granted. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.

Pre-Hearing Disclosure of Documents and Witnesses

6In a Case Assessment Direction dated December 30, 2011, the Tribunal directed the parties to this matter to comply with their obligations pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure with respect to the pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses. These obligations were to be fulfilled immediately and in any event by no later than January 9, 2012.

7Although Ms Potrzebowski indicated in a September 2011 letter to the Tribunal that she was aware of and fully prepared to meet her responsibilities as a party to the proceeding, she appears not to have complied with the directions in the Tribunal’s December 30, 2011 Case Assessment Direction.

8In the circumstances, however, given that the Tribunal has only just formally granted Ms Potrzebowski’s Request to be added as a party to the proceeding (Ms Potrzebowski having only made her formal Request on January 3, 2012), I find it appropriate to give Ms Potrzebowski some additional time to meet her pre-hearing disclosure obligations as the applicant in this matter. Specifically, the applicant is directed to file with the Tribunal and to deliver to the respondent witness statements for any witnesses she intends to call at the hearing in this matter, including herself, by no later than January 13, 2012.

9The consequences of the applicant’s failure to comply with this Direction and/or her other obligations surrounding pre-hearing disclosure under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are as set out in Rules 16.4 and 17.4 of the Rules of Procedure and the Tribunal’s December 30, 2011 Case Assessment Direction in this matter.

10Nothing in this Interim Decision ought to be interpreted as relieving the respondent from his obligation to comply with the directions in the Tribunal’s December 30, 2011 Case Assessment Direction.

11A copy of the Tribunal’s “Rules of Procedure Governing Part IV Applications” are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.

12The hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 23, 24 and 25, 2012.