Bruno v. North York Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram Fiat (“NYC”), 2015 HRTO 855

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sam Bruno Applicant

-and-

North York Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram Fiat (“NYC”) Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: June 25, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 855 Indexed as: Bruno v. North York Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram Fiat (“NYC”)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sam Bruno, Applicant

Carmine Scalzi, Counsel

1On December 18, 2014, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondent had discriminated against him with respect to employment.

2On March 6, 2015, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegation of discrimination.

3On April 21, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested that the respondent provide particulars and produce certain documents in order to allow him to file a proper Reply. The respondent did not file a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

4The applicant’s request for particulars is denied. As a matter of course, parties are expected to complete the exchange of pleadings, i.e., Application, Response and Reply, prior to raising preliminary matters. See Kovacs v. DBG Canada Limited, 2013 HRTO 1536 at para. 7. I do not agree with the applicant that the information provided in the Response with respect to customer complaints about him is so lacking that particulars must be ordered at this stage of the proceeding.

5The applicant’s request for production of documents is also denied. Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure requires each party to deliver to every other party a list and copy of all arguably relevant documents in its possession, but this requirement is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet occurred. Pursuant to Rule 5.2, the Tribunal may vary the application of Rule 16 to allow for early production of documents, but it will only do so in exceptional circumstances, such as where a respondent is unable to file a Response, or an applicant is unable to ascertain the identity or contact information of a proposed respondent. See DaSilva v. Ron Mahon Equipment Limited, 2015 HRTO 712 at para. 14. The applicant has not identified any exceptional circumstances, and his request is therefore premature.

6The Tribunal therefore makes the following orders:

1. The applicant’s request for particulars and production of documents is denied.

2. Within seven days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal his Reply.

7I am not seized of this matter.