HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Antonio Mantello
Applicant
-and-
Prografix Inc. and Najib Jamal
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Mantello v. Prografix Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Antonio Mantello, Applicant
Christian Piersanti, Counsel
Prografix Inc. and Najib Jamal, Respondents
Robert W. Wilson, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of age. The respondents have filed a Response denying the allegations of discrimination.
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a number of procedural issues including a Request for an Order during Proceeding (“RFOP”) which was filed by the applicant with the Tribunal on April 18, 2013 for the production on documents and an extension of time to file hearing materials.
3In the cover letter to the Tribunal the applicant states, “If the respondent does not provide such information, we will also have no alternative but to request an interim order, for which we enclose a Form 10.”
4I have reviewed the materials provided by the respondents and I am satisfied that they have complied with the RFOP dated April 18, 2013, and as such there is no basis for the Tribunal to make such an order.
5It appears that on May 17, 2013, the applicant requested further documents from the respondents, including “a list of all hours paid to all employees of the press and/or sheet fed department”.
6On May 28, 2013, the applicant maintained that it required these documents otherwise he would “proceed to request the Order from the HRTO”.
7On June 6, 2013, the applicant’s counsel wrote, “We have already filed a Form 10. We will insist on such production, or our client will subpoena these persons.”
8There is currently no Form 10 that is before this Tribunal with respect to the further production request of the applicant dated May 17, 2013. If the applicant seeks such production then he must file a Form 10, which clearly sets out why the documents sought are arguably relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings. If the applicant intends to file such a further request, then he must clearly explain such arguable relevance, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to have to review a series of letters to try to ascertain such relevance.
Emails to the Tribunal
9The parties have been copying the Tribunal with a number of unnecessary emails and letters. The parties are directed to cease this practice, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as time sensitive requests for an adjournment.
Hearing materials
10The Notice of Hearing indicates that the parties had to deliver and file witness lists, a detailed summary of each proposed witness’ evidence (this evidence should be fully particularized in accordance with the Tribunal’s case-law), and the documents that they intend to rely on by June 21, 2013.
11I am prepared to extend the time for both parties to file these materials to July 3, 2013. I encourage the parties to tender a Joint Book of Documents of agreed to documents to the extent possible.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of June, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair