HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ayan Hassan
Applicant
-and-
Nexus Protective Services Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Indexed as: Hassan v. Nexus Protective Services Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ayan Hassan, Applicant
Billeh Hamud, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Reprisal is also alleged.
2A hearing date has been set for April 9, 2015 and the parties were directed to share their arguably relevant documents with each other by November 27, 2014.
3This Interim Decision deals with three requests made by the applicant. The respondent has not responded to any of them.
4The applicant maintains that on November 4, 2014 the respondent has sought to file a reply to the Reply which she filed on October 20, 2014. She asks the Tribunal to strike this document because the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure do not allow for the respondent to file a reply to an applicant’s Reply. The document in question does not appear to have been provided to the Tribunal as it does not show up in the Tribunal’s electronic file. Because of this the Tribunal cannot grant the applicant’s request.
5However, the applicant is correct in how she describes the Tribunal’s rules as working. If the respondent wants to amend its Response, the proper route for doing so is to file a request. If that happens, and if the request is granted, then the applicant will have an opportunity to reply to any new pleadings by the respondent.
6The next request by the applicant is to retrospectively extend the time to provide her arguably relevant documents to the respondent by two days. She found some documents which she had omitted to provide to the respondent by the November 27 deadline and sent them two days later. This request is granted because there is no prejudice to the respondent in doing so.
7Finally, the respondent has not complied with its obligation to disclose arguably relevant documents to the applicant. She requests that the Tribunal direct it to do so. The respondent has provided no good reason for its failure to meet its disclosure obligations. It is directed to provide its arguably relevant documents to the applicant within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
order
8The applicant’s request to strike the respondent’s document dated November 4, 2014 is denied because the Tribunal has no such document in its file.
9The applicant’s request for an extension of time is granted.
10The respondent is directed to provide its arguably relevant documents to the applicant within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of January, 2015.
“signed by”
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair