Powless v. Ontario Lacrosse Association, 2015 HRTO 1719

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Todd Powless Applicant

-and-

Ontario Lacrosse Association, Sonya Crossey, Tina Manning, and Marion Ladouceur Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 22, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1719 Indexed as: Powless v. Ontario Lacrosse Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Todd Powless, Applicant Self-represented

Ontario Lacrosse Association, Sonya Crossey, Tina Manning, and Marion Ladouceur, Respondents Kayla Kwinter, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2A summary hearing in this case is scheduled on February 19, 2016.

3The applicant has filed a Request for Tribunal Ordered Inquiry. The respondent has responded and opposes the Request.

4The Request is denied.

5The Tribunal has held on many occasions that a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry will not be a routine event. The Tribunal has also held that the existence of the power to appoint such an inquiry will not be a substituted for the usual production process contemplated by the Tribunal’s Rules. See White v. University of Ottawa, 2009 HRTO 1057. Indeed, as pointed out by the respondent, although there have been numerous requests, the Tribunal has never ordered a Tribunal Inquiry.

6In his Request, the applicant alleges that potential witnesses in a hearing have been threatened. However, he provides no particulars of this allegation and does not explain why the obtaining of evidence related to his allegations is required for the fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of this Application. These lacunae are sufficient to justify the denial of the request.

7I also observe that this case has been scheduled for a summary hearing. No evidence will be tendered at the summary hearing. Accordingly it is the applicant’s responsibility to describe the evidence he has available to him not to tender it at the summary hearing. In the event that this Application proceeds to a full merits hearing, the issues raised by the applicant are matters that can be raised with any witnesses called to give evidence at that time.

8I am not seized of this case