HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Stephanie De Francesca
Applicant
-and-
Centric Investigation Services Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: De Francesca v. Centric Investigation Services Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Stephanie De Francesca, Applicant
Arthur Zeilikman, Counsel
Centric Investigation Services Inc., Respondent
Inna Koldorf, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses various preliminary issues raised by the parties.
Respondent’s request to remove personal respondents
2The respondent requested the removal of the personal respondents to the Application. The applicant consented to this request by letter dated April 7, 2016. On consent of the parties, the Tribunal grants the respondent’s request to remove the personal respondents.
Respondent’s request for summary hearing
3Under Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision to hold or not to hold a summary hearing. In the circumstances of this case, I will simply note that the issues raised by the applicant and respondents may only be resolved after hearing evidence in a hearing on the merits. The Tribunal’s summary hearing process is used to deal with those applications where the allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered. This is not the case here. Summary hearings do not involve the hearing of any evidence. In order to address the respondents’ refutation of the applicant’s allegations, a hearing on the merits must be held. Therefore, the Request for a Summary Hearing is denied.
Applicant’s Request to Amend Her Application
4By Request for Order During Proceeding (“RFOP”) dated April 7, 2016, the applicant requested permission to amend her Application. By Response to her RFOP dated April 22, 2016, the respondent consented to the amendment of the Application subject to a request for production and a request to extend the deadline for the respondent’s Response to the amended Application. I address each of these two requests below.
5In determining 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 respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.
6Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. This Application is at a relatively early stage of proceedings as it has yet to be scheduled for a hearing. As well, I see no prejudice to granting the applicant’s request to amend her Application. The respondent is permitted to file an Amended Response and the applicant is permitted to file a Reply to the Amended Response.
respondent’s request for production
6The respondent requested production of certain text messages and notebook entries. The request for production is premature at this stage. Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sets out rules and deadlines for the disclosure and production of documents by the parties. This Rule is triggered by the issuance of the Notice of Hearing, which has not yet happened in this case.
7The Tribunal has exercised its discretion to allow for early production of documents, but only in exceptional circumstances such as when production is necessary for the respondent to file a Response: see Hashi v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 869. The respondent has not established the exceptional circumstances necessary for the Tribunal to grant its request for early production. It appears that the applicant has now produced the requested texts to the respondent. In addition, I find that production of the texts or the note book are not necessary for the respondent to fill an Amended Response.
request re. email sent in error
8This request will be dealt with in a separate Interim Decision.
ORDER
9For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The respondent’s request to remove Panayiota Di Poce, Marco Febbraro, Nadia Borsellino and Domenic Sturino as personal respondents is granted. The style of cause will be amended accordingly.
b. The respondent’s Request for a Summary Hearing is denied.
c. The applicant’s request to amend her Application is granted. Her Application will be replaced with the Application attached to her April 7, 2016 RFOP. The respondent may file an Amended Response within 21 days of this Interim Decision. The applicant may file a Reply within 14 days of receiving any Amended Response.
d. The respondent’s production request is denied as premature.
e. The Registrar shall schedule a 2 day hearing of this Application.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair