Moyal v. Toronto (City), 2013 HRTO 1497

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Moyal

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Daniel Pang

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: September 5, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1497

Indexed as: Moyal v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

David Moyal, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent

Amy Murakami, Counsel

Daniel Pang, Respondent

Aaron Schwartz, Counsel

Introduction

1These Applications were filed in 2010 and 2011. They were dismissed as abandoned on January 15, 2013, 2013 HRTO 75, because the applicant failed to disclose his arguably relevant documents after two Case Assessment Directions (“CAD”) directed him to do so.

2By decision dated April 15, 2013, 2013 HRTO 623, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to reconsider its dismissal decision and ordered the Applications could proceed on certain terms. The Tribunal advised the applicant that he must conduct himself differently to ensure the Applications are resolved in an expeditious manner.

3By CAD dated May 6, 2013, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file his arguably relevant documents by August 15, 2013. The Tribunal advised the applicant that if he missed this deadline, the Applications would be dismissed with no further warnings. The Tribunal stated the following:

Mr. Moyal has been advised that this is a final chance, and I reiterated the importance of respecting the Tribunal’s directions and deadlines and the respondents’ right to know the allegations against them and have these Applications dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

4The applicant did not file his arguably relevant documents by August 15, 2013.

5On August 19, 2013, counsel for the City of Toronto requested that all four Applications be dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the May 6, 2013 CAD. On that date, counsel for the individual respondent made the same request and asked for costs in this matter because of the applicant’s conduct in drawing out the Applications only to abandon them without explanation. Counsel for the individual respondent stated the following:

My client has spent considerable time, money and resources over the past 6 years in responding to Mr. Moyal’s various applications, attending mediations, responding to Mr. Moyal’s requests for extensions of time and for reconsideration of a decision to dismiss these actions as abandoned, and in disclosing and producing documents to Mr. Moyal. He now, without explanation, refuses or neglects to follow the Tribunal’s directions to disclose and deliver his own documents 16 months after they were originally due.

6On August 20, 2013, the applicant contacted the Registrar and asked for an extension of time due to the difficulties he and his family had experienced in relocating back to Canada from Israel. The applicant also stated that he had not received a decision regarding the Summary Hearing for file 2013-13367-I.

DECISION

7These four Applications are dismissed. There has been a lengthy history of the applicant not complying with the Tribunal’s directions. The May 6, 2013 CAD made it clear to the applicant that if he failed to comply with the Tribunal’s direction to file his arguably relevant documents by August 15, 2013, the Applications would be dismissed with no further warning. The applicant was advised that this direction was his “final chance”. Notwithstanding the clear direction and notice of the consequences for non-compliance, the applicant failed to comply. In light of the applicant’s history of non-compliance and the time and effort expended by the respondents in responding to these Applications, they are dismissed.

8Counsel for the individual respondent has requested legal costs. The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear that it does not have jurisdiction to order legal costs. See for example XY v. Ontario (Government and Consumer Services), 2012 HRTO 726 at para. 284.

9The applicant has filed a fifth Application, 2013-13367-I, against Walmer Flats Property Management. This Application is not included in this Decision. The Tribunal issued a CAD dated August 27, 2013 giving the parties clear directions. Those directions stand.