Gregoire v. Ontario (Government Services), 2013 HRTO 56

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Gregoire Applicant

-and-

The Crown in Right of Ontario (as represented by the Minister of Government Services), Warren Thomas, Kathleen Dillabough, Sonia Boudreau, Diane Boisvert, Alison Dewar, Dennis Bedeau, Marsha Smith, Ken Suddabay, Peter Judge, Workwise, Liberal Party of Ontario and Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: January 11, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 56

Indexed as: Gregoire v. Ontario (Government Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

John Gregoire, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed on September 12, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sex, association with a person identified with a Code ground and reprisal. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry.

2On October 2, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) stating that a summary hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The CAD indicated that the respondents need not file Responses to the Application.

3On November 14, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry (Form 12). The applicant submits that a Tribunal Inquiry is necessary because he has not received evidence that he has requested as part of his Application. He submits that the Tribunal Vice-chair who issued the October 2, 2012 CAD discriminated against him when he determined that a summary hearing would be held because this tells the respondents that the Application will fail. He further submits that someone from outside the Tribunal is required to conduct an inquiry because the Tribunal Vice-chair who issued the CAD is paid by the Liberal government, one of the named respondents.

4The respondents have not filed responses to the applicant’s Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry.

DECISION

5The Tribunal’s authority to order an inquiry in certain circumstances is derived from s. 44 of the Code:

44 (1) At the request of a party to an application under this Part, the Tribunal may appoint a person to conduct an inquiry under this section if the Tribunal is satisfied that,

(a) an inquiry is required in order to obtain evidence;

(b) the evidence obtained may assist in achieving a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the application; and

(c) it is appropriate to do so in the circumstances.

6I do not accept the applicant’s position that a Tribunal Inquiry is necessary in the circumstances of this case. The applicant raises a concern that he has yet to receive needed evidence from the respondents. However, there is no requirement at this preliminary stage of the Application process for the respondents to disclose evidence to the applicant. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure clearly set out when and under what circumstances evidence is to be disclosed. The Tribunal has also stated that a Tribunal Inquiry is not to be a substitute for the usual disclosure process set out in the Tribunal’s Rules. See Miraglia v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 1031.

7The applicant’s further arguments are essentially that the Tribunal may be biased in its dealings with the applicant and for this reason it should appoint a person from outside the Tribunal to conduct an inquiry. However, the primary purpose of an inquiry pursuant to s. 44 is in order to facilitate the obtaining of evidence that may assist in the resolution of an application. The applicant’s allegations of bias based on the Tribunal having ordered a summary hearing and Tribunal members being public servants paid by the Government of Ontario do not constitute reasons for ordering an inquiry to obtain evidence. The applicant’s request is denied.