HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rigaud Bastien
Applicant
-and-
York University
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Bastien v. York University
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rigaud Bastien, Applicant
Self-represented
York University, Respondent
Joanna S. Rainbow, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2This matter is scheduled for a one-day hearing in Toronto, on December 10, 2015, commencing at 9:30 a.m. This Interim Decision addresses a number of the applicant’s requests.
Adjournment Request
3The applicant seeks an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to January 2016. It should be noted that the Tribunal has no availability during that time and that if an adjournment would be granted it is unlikely that this matter would be rescheduled before April or May 2016. The respondent opposes the adjournment of the hearing.
4The applicant appears to be relying on his medical condition to support his adjournment request. However, the only information provided to the Tribunal are two medical notes from May and August 2015 which state that the applicant is depressed and has chronic neck pain. Neither of these notes supports the applicant’s alleged need for an adjournment. There is no explanation provided as to why the applicant believes that he cannot attend the hearing in December but that he could attend a hearing in January.
5This matter has been scheduled for hearing since April 2015. I note that the December 10, 2015 hearing was set after consultation with the parties who agreed to proceed on this date. The Tribunal will only adjourn at this late stage if there are exceptional reasons which warrant a cancellation of the hearing. Having considered the matter, I find that the applicant, who has been and continues to be engaged in the litigation process, has failed to satisfy me that there are medical reasons which prevent his attendance and/or participation at the hearing. The applicant’s adjournment request is denied.
The applicant’s November 12 RFOP
6On November 12, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (the “RFOP”) seeking production of various documents (the “production RFOP”) and an order prohibiting the respondent from using and/or disclosing his information. The respondent opposes the applicant’s RFOP for a number of reasons, including that it is vexatious and an abuse of process.
7Having considered the matter. I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to order the respondent to provide any additional documents at this time. The applicant has simply not provided me with any information which would assist in determining whether these documents are arguably relevant to material issues in the Application. The production RFOP is denied.
8The Tribunal has already issued an Interim Decision dismissing his request to prevent the respondent from communicating information about him, in Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 749. This issue will not be revisited by the Tribunal. This portion of the RFOP is also denied.
Order
9The Tribunal orders:
a. The applicant’s adjournment request is denied and the hearing shall proceed on December 10, 2015; and
b. The applicant’s November 12, 2015 RFOP is denied in its entirety.
Other matters
10The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over all allegations of general unfairness. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to determining allegations of unfairness that fall within the Code. Having reviewed the matter, it appears that many of the applicant’s allegations do not relate to any violations of the Code. At the hearing, the applicant should focus his submissions and evidence to explain who, when, and how his Code rights where infringed by the respondent.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of November, 2015.
“Signed By”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair