Mukesh Chopra v. Beata Kratiuk, 2012 HRTO 705

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Beata Kratiuk

Respondent

interim decision

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: April 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 705

Indexed as: Chopra v. Kratiuk

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed on November 21, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with a request by the respondent for an extension of time for filing written argument.

2The hearing of this matter began on October 13, 2009 and concluded on December 7, 2011. The parties agreed to file final arguments by way of written submissions. A schedule for delivery and filing of submissions (40 pages maximum) was agreed as follows:

February 20, 2012 Applicant argument due;

March 19, 2012 Respondent argument due;

March 26, 2012 Applicant Reply, if any.

3On February 21, 2012, the applicant filed written argument with the Tribunal (February 20 was a public holiday in Ontario). The respondent did not submit written argument on March 19, 2012.

4On April 3, 2012, counsel for the respondent wrote to the Tribunal indicating that, according to his notes (which he admitted were “apparently in error”), he was led to believe that his client’s submissions were due on April 26, 2012. He had been alerted to the error by counsel for the applicant. As a result, counsel sought an extension of time to April 26, 2012. He also advised the Tribunal that he would be on vacation April 6-17, 2012.

5The applicant does not consent to the request.

DECISION AND ORDER

6A Tribunal application is a legal proceeding. If a violation of the Code is found, it may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to the applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. In adjudicating claims before it, the Tribunal must ensure that its Rules and directions are respected and its process treated seriously, while at the same time showing flexibility and fairness in approach.

7The Tribunal has the following powers, pursuant to its Rules:

1.1. In order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:

a) lengthen or shorten any time limit in these Rules;

v.1) make such orders or give such directions as are necessary to prevent abuse of its processes and ensure that the conduct of participants in Tribunal proceedings is courteous and respectful of the Tribunal and other participants;

5.1. Where a party fails to deliver material to another party or person as required by these Rules, the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material, or may take any other action it considers appropriate.

8This Application was filed nearly four years ago. The hearing began in October 2009 and ended only in December 2011. In opposing the respondent’s request for a time extension, the applicant cited previous delays and relied on the Tribunal’s express order that deadlines be respected in this case. Indeed, the main purpose for receiving arguments in writing was to avoid the scheduling conflicts that had caused such delay in the hearing to date.

9Notwithstanding the history, at this point, there is little benefit in denying the respondent an opportunity to file argument. All of the evidence has been heard and the Tribunal must decide the issues. It is in the Tribunal’s interest to hear argument from the respondent. There is no indication that any substantial prejudice has been caused, or will be caused, as a result of the respondent’s error. Delay can, itself, cause prejudice. However, in looking at the overall state of this Application, this delay at this stage of the proceedings is relatively minor in the circumstances.

10For these reasons, the Tribunal will grant the request for an extension up to April 20, 2012. This represents nearly five weeks’ extension, and is more than four months since the hearing of the evidence closed. The respondent has had ample time, even considering counsel’s spring vacation. This deadline is peremptory on the respondent, meaning that no further extension will be granted. Late submissions will not be accepted and will not be considered by the Tribunal.

11The applicant shall file reply submissions, if any, by April 27, 2012.

12It should be noted that my granting of this extension should not in any way be construed as condonation of the respondent’s conduct. Counsel have professional and ethical duties to be diligent in making adequate notes, meeting deadlines, and complying with Tribunal directions. A denial of the opportunity to make argument in this case would have seriously prejudiced his clients, and potentially exposed himself to liability for negligence and professional misconduct.