Murugesan v. CIBC Mortgages Inc., 2015 HRTO 1343

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Prakash Murugesan Applicant

-and-

CIBC Mortgages Inc., Gerald McCaughey, Brent Belzberg, Gary Colter, Dominic D'Alessandro, Patrick Daniel, Luc Desjardins, Gordon Giffin, Linda Hasenfratz, Kevin Kelly, Nicholas Le Pan, John Manley, Jane Peveret, Leslie Rahl, Charles Sirois, Katharine Stevenson, Ronald Tysoe, Jacqueline Moss and John Silverthorn Respondents

-and-

Great West Life Proposed Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: October 7, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1343 Indexed as: Murugesan v. CIBC Mortgages Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Prakash Murugesan, Applicant Self-represented

CIBC Mortgages Inc., Respondent John Field, Counsel

Great West Life, Proposed Respondent Susan McCorquodale, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to re-activate his deferred Application and also his request that I reconsider my Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 206, in which I denied his request to amend his Application.

REQUEST TO re-activate deferred APPLICATION

2By Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 426, I granted the applicant’s request to defer consideration of his Application for six months due to medical reasons.

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed on September 25, 2015, the applicant requested that the Tribunal re-activate his deferred Application. He attached to his RFOP a letter from his treating physician which indicates that he is able to continue with his Application as of the end of September 2015. The letter also purported to address other issues that do not relate to the applicant’s request to re-activate his Application.

4The respondent and proposed respondent did not oppose re-activation.

5In light of the above, the Application is re-activated. A Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) will be sent to the parties with this Interim Decision. The CAD sets out deadlines for the summary hearing in this matter.

Request to Reconsider Interim Decision

6By Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 206, I denied the applicant’s request to amend his Application to add a new allegation. I stated at para. 5 of that Interim Decision:

I deny the applicant’s Request to amend his Application to add the above allegation. The Application was filed on November 6, 2013. Several steps have already been taken in this proceeding. Most importantly, the Tribunal is in the midst of summary hearing process which has been the subject of numerous Case Assessment Directions. The first part of the summary hearing which is being conducted in writing has commenced with submissions being received from the respondents. I do not consider it appropriate for the applicant to raise the proposed amendment at this late stage of proceedings, some 15 months after he filed his Application and several years after the facts that gave rise to the allegation took place. The facts that gave rise to the allegation were well known to the applicant when he filed his Application. I do not consider it appropriate to permit him to amend his Application at this late stage.

7The applicant requested that I reconsider this Interim Decision in light of the doctor’s letter attached to his September 25, 2015 RFOP.

8This request is denied. To begin, the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) provide that a party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal. A decision will only be considered a final decision where the decision has the effect of finally determining the substance of the dispute or a central element of the dispute between the parties. See for example Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Ontario Teachers’ Federation (1994), 1994 CanLII 10578 (ON CTGD), 19 O.R. (3d) 371 (ONSC). An Interim Decision denying a request to amend an Application is not a final decision that determines the substance of the dispute and therefore it cannot be subject to a request for reconsideration.

9Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing in the letter from the applicant’s physician that I was not aware of when I issued my Interim Decision. The applicant has repeatedly claimed that he has trouble gaining insight and processing information. The applicant has requested, and been granted, substantial accommodations to enable him to participate in the summary hearing. To the extent that the applicant’s doctor claims that it may take the applicant “years” to understand information, if that is the case, it may well be that the applicant is incapable of carrying out the essential steps that are required to participate in a proceeding before the Tribunal. At this point, it is sufficient for me to find that there is nothing in the applicant’s doctor’s note that would cause me to reconsider my Interim Decision denying the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

Next Steps

10On October 6, 2015, the applicant sought to reply to a Response that was filed to the RFOP he filed. The Tribunal’s Rules do not provide for a right of reply to an RFOP. Therefore, the Tribunal will not consider any submissions the applicant seeks to make as a “Reply” to a Response to an RFOP.

11I agree with the respondent that the doctor’s note that the applicant submitted with his September 25, 2015 RFOP is not appropriately submitted as evidence on any issue other than his request to re-activate. If the applicant seeks to rely upon any doctor’s notes in his summary hearing submissions, I will have to hear submissions from the parties as to whether it is appropriate for me to consider the doctors notes or whether the applicant must also call his doctor to testify as a witness in the summary hearing.

12In particular, I note that there is an apparent inconsistency between the most recent doctor’s note and the fact that this same doctor signed a certificate of competence in relation to the 2008 settlement agreement stating:

I confirm that Mr. Muregesan is competent to understand and make decisions in respect of the matters contained in that agreement and is able to understand the nature, consequences and effect of any decision he may make to be bound by this agreement.

13The applicant should address this certificate of competence, as well as the companying certificate of independent legal advice, in his summary hearing submissions.

Applicant’s Unnecessary Filings with the Tribunal

14While it may not be readily apparent to parties in Tribunal proceedings, the repeated filing of unnecessary materials is a significant drain on Tribunal resources. The Tribunal receives thousands of applications per year. The Tribunal has a process set out in its Rules of Procedure to deal with applications. The CAD accompanying this Interim Decision sets out deadlines for the summary hearing of this matter. The next step in this case is for the applicant to file his summary hearing submissions.

15Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant is not permitted to file any further materials with the Tribunal before he files his submissions for the summary hearing. The Tribunal will not respond to any materials he files before filing his summary hearing submissions, unless it is necessary to do so. If the applicant does file materials with the Tribunal and receives no response from the Tribunal, it is because the Tribunal has determined that no response is necessary. It follows from the above, that the respondent and proposed respondent do not have to respond to any materials or requests filed by the applicant unless directed to do so by the Tribunal.

ORDERS

16For the above reasons, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to re-activate his Application is granted.

b. The applicant’s request that I reconsider my Interim Decision denying his request to amend his application is denied.