Mporo v. Graner, 2014 HRTO 1675

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Mporo

Applicant

-and-

Gallia Graner

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: November 19, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1675

Indexed as: Mporo v. Graner

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Mporo, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of citizenship and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant is unrepresented. He filed an Application which names one respondent. The respondent works for COSTI Immigrant Services (“COSTI”). COSTI is an organization that provides educational, social, and employment services to help immigrants in the Toronto, York Region and Peel areas attain self-sufficiency in Canadian society. The applicant’s narrative also alleges that an unnamed manager at COSTI condoned the allegedly discriminatory actions of the respondent.

3The narrative also alleges that he was discriminated against by a Mr. Spizzirri. There is no clear indication who Mr. Spizzirri is or who he works for, but I infer from the narrative that Mr. Spizzirri teaches English to new Canadians.

4Now the applicant has filed a request to add a respondent, yet no proposed respondent is identified in the request. In the section of the request form which asks him to describe the order requested, the applicant has indicated: “ordonner (forcer) l’intimée et la directrice à se présenter à l’audience.”

5I assume from this that the applicant is requesting that the Tribunal issue a summons to compel both the respondent and the unnamed manager to appear at a hearing of this Application and to give evidence. This is not the same as adding a respondent to an Application. The Tribunal will only issue a summons to oblige a person to appear at a hearing once it is clear that the Application will proceed to a hearing and the hearing itself has been scheduled.

6The request is denied because it is not in substance a request to add a respondent, as no proposed respondent has been identified. The request is also denied because, if it is a request to issue a summons, this request is premature.

7The Application was filed in French and the applicant has communicated with the Tribunal in French. The Response was filed in English and the respondent has communicated with the Tribunal in English. The applicant has indicated that he cannot understand the Response and has requested that the Tribunal send him a version in French.

8Each party can use the language of their choice in proceedings before the Tribunal. While the Tribunal does provide interpreters for hearings, it does not translate documents for the benefit of the parties.

9The Tribunal provided the Response to the applicant and directed him to file a Reply by November 17, 2014. As the applicant seems to be having difficulty understanding the Response, it is appropriate to grant him an extension of time to file a Reply. The applicant is directed to file a Reply by no later than December 8, 2014. This will give him time to find someone who can assist him with understanding the Response.

10The applicant may wish to consult the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (contact information is found at www.hrlsc.on.ca) or a community legal clinic in the area where he lives (contact information is found at www.legalaid.on.ca) to obtain information about how the Tribunal’s process works.

order

11The request to add a respondent is denied.

12The applicant is granted an extension of time until December 8, 2014 to file a Reply.