Kassir v. Del Property Management Inc., 2016 HRTO 1407

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bashar Kassir Applicant

-and-

Del Property Management Inc., Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 607 and Sokol Taullaj Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: October 31, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1407 Indexed as: Kassir v. Del Property Management Inc.

1A hearing in respect of this Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, is scheduled for December 7 and 8, 2016 in Toronto.

2This Interim Decision addresses the following:

1. The applicant’s February 10, 2016 Request for an Order During Proceedings requesting to amend the Application (“request to amend”);
2. The applicant’s September 26, 2016 Request for an Order During Proceedings requesting that the Tribunal order Bernie Baskovic to testify at the hearing (“request to order witness”);
3. The respondents’ failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses;
4. The applicant’s September 15, 2016 Request for an Order During Proceedings requesting the production of documents (“request for production of documents”).

request to amend

3On February 10, 2016, the applicant asked to amend the Application to add, in the section “How the Events You Described Affected You”, information about a diagnosis he received on January 12, 2016 that he claims relates to stress caused by the alleged discrimination.

4The respondents did not file a response to the request to amend.

5Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.

6In deciding requests to amend applications the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondents. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

7I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend the Application as described in the request to amend. The applicant filed the request to amend well ahead of the hearing date with regard to the merits of the Application. The respondents did not respond to the request to amend and have had adequate time to consider the new information raised by the applicant. In addition, the new information appears to be linked to the allegations outlined in the Application. The respondents have not argued they will be prejudiced by the amendments, and I find that there is no apparent prejudice to the respondents in granting the Request.

Request to order witness to testify

8The applicant requests that the Tribunal order Mr. Baskovic to testify as a witness at the hearing.

9Parties are expected to call the evidence upon which they wish to rely and there is no property in a witness. The applicant is free to summons Mr. Baskovic and any other individuals as his own witnesses. In the circumstances, the applicant’s request to order a witness to testify is denied. See Schafer v. Toronto District School Board, 2009 HRTO 571 at para. 12.

Disclosure Obligations

10As the Tribunal notified the parties in the August 22, 2016 Notice of Hearing, under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the parties were obliged to provide the following things by no later than October 24, 2016:

a. a list of the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing (these are the documents that you have chosen to put before the Tribunal from among the documents previously disclosed by both parties) – to one another and to the Tribunal;

b. copies of each of these documents for the Tribunal; and

c. a list of the witnesses with witness statements setting out the intended evidence of each witness – to one another and to the Tribunal.

11It is now well past the deadline for complying with these obligations and the respondents have not complied with the obligations regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness statements.

12There are serious consequences for this case if the parties do not comply with their obligations under the Tribunal’s Rules, as set out below.

Directions to Respondents

13By no later than November 4, 2016, the respondents must deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal: (1) the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing, (2) a list of their witnesses and (3) a brief statement describing what their witnesses will say when they testify.

14The personal respondent, Sokol Taullaj, is also reminded that he must submit a witness statement for himself, if he intends to testify at the hearing. However, if the personal respondent only intends to testify about the facts already contained in the Response, it is sufficient for him to confirm that in writing by November 4, 2016.

15If the respondents do not provide the above-noted materials by November 4, 2016, the Tribunal may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, including not permitting the respondents to call any witnesses or present any documentary evidence at the hearing.

16The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are available at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/ under “Law, Rules, Decisions”.

17The parties may also benefit from reviewing the Tribunal’s “Guide to Preparing for a Hearing before the HRTO”, available at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/ under “Forms & Filing”.

request for production of documents

18The applicant’s request for production includes a very large volume of materials that may or may not be arguably relevant to this matter. The respondents have failed to comply with their disclosure obligations. However, this Interim Decision grants an extension for compliance. As a result, I will not consider the applicant’s request for production at this time. The applicant may file another Request for an Order During Proceeding once the respondents have complied with their disclosure obligations or upon the failure of the respondents to do so.

order

19The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The applicant’s February 10, 2016 request to amend the Application to add information outlined in the request to amend is granted;
2. The respondents are permitted to file an amended Response. They shall file any amended Response with the Tribunal, delivered to the applicant, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision;
3. The request to order a witness to testify is denied;
4. The respondents shall, by no later than November 7, 2016, deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal:

a. the documents they intend to rely upon at the hearing;

b. a list of their witnesses; and

c. a brief statement describing what their witnesses will say when they testify.

Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of October, 2016.

“Signed By”

Josée Bouchard Vice-chair