HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Trevor Franklin Applicant
-and-
Malvern Property Management Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Bruce Best
Indexed as: Franklin v. Malvern Property Management
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Trevor Franklin, Applicant Self-represented
Malvern Property Management, Respondent Victor Yee, Counsel
1This Application was filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended. This Interim Decision addresses several procedural issues.
2The parties were sent a Notice of Hearing on September 13, 2016, advising that a hearing in this matter has been scheduled for January 18, 2017 in Toronto. The Notice of Hearing indicated that if either party wished to reschedule the hearing date, they must advise the Tribunal and the other parties within 14 days of the date of the Notice, i.e., by September 27, 2016. The Notice of Hearing also indicated that under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure the applicant and respondent were obliged to each send to the Tribunal a Statement of Delivery by October 4, 2016 confirming that they had sent a copy of all arguably relevant documents in their possession (except those that are privileged) to the other party.
3The respondent filed its confirmation indicating its documents were sent to the applicant by electronic mail on October 4, 2016. The applicant disputes receiving the documents by email, and claims that he did not receive the documents until they were delivered by courier to him on October 11, 2016. He asks that the documents be “voided” as they were delivered after the October 4, 2016 deadline.
4The respondent notes that the applicant has not complied with Rule 16.1, and has not provided them with any documents at all. The applicant has also not filed any confirmation of delivery with the Tribunal. On October 11, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to require the applicant to comply with Rule 16.1. The respondent also filed a Request for a summary hearing, in particular requesting that the January 18, 2017 hearing date be changed from an in-person hearing to a teleconference to consider only whether the application should be dismissed under Rule 19A as having no reasonable prospect of success.
5On October 14, 2016, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal seeking to defer consideration of the Application on the basis that he had made a complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada against counsel for the respondent, and that he is in the process of preparing a Statement of Claim to bring an action in Small Claims’ Court related to a lien being placed on his property by his condominium corporation. He also sought to adjourn or reschedule the hearing on the basis that he is seeking legal representation for advice on the respondent’s disclosure request.
Applicant’s Request for Adjournment/Deferral
Deferral
6The Tribunal advised the applicant by email on October 17, 2016 that if he wished to request that the Application be deferred pending the resolution of either of these other proceedings, he was required to do so by filing a Form 10, Request for an Order During Proceedings. He has not done so. The applicant has not filed any materials in support of his request, and from his correspondence there does not appear to be any basis on which the Tribunal should consider deferring the Application at this time. The Application is not deferred.
Adjournment
7The Tribunal’s Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments states:
Requests for Adjournments
The HRTO discourages requests for adjournments outside the 14-day period to request rescheduling of a mediation or hearing, described above. Requests for adjournments, particularly at the last minute, are a significant impediment to fair and timely access to justice. Therefore, the HRTO will only grant adjournments in extraordinary circumstances such as illness of a party, witness or representative.
8The applicant has not pointed to any extraordinary circumstances that would support his request to adjourn the hearing. The Tribunal will generally not grant an adjournment to permit a party to retain legal representation. See Vallentyne v. Royal Canadian Legion, 2009 HRTO 660, at para. 1. Though the applicant has indicated that he has had to seek medical attention due to the stress of these proceedings, he has not indicated that he is unable to participate in the hearing on January 18, 2017. The request for an adjournment is denied.
Respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing
9The respondent’s Request for a summary hearing is refused. Pursuant to Rule 19.5A, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision not to hold a summary hearing, and in this case I find that it is not appropriate to do so. The parties should be prepared to argue the hearing on the merits on the scheduled hearing date. This decision is, however, made without prejudice to the respondent’s right to ask the hearing adjudicator to dismiss the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Disclosure
Arguably relevant documents
10The respondent filed its confirmation as required under the Rules. Though the applicant claims that he did not receive the respondent’s disclosure in a timely fashion, he acknowledges that he had received it as of October 11, 2016. In my view, there is no basis to “void” the respondent’s disclosure as requested by the applicant; even if it was not received by the applicant on October 4, 2016, he has not pointed to any prejudice he has suffered as a result of not receiving the documents until October 11, 2016.
11Furthermore, as noted above, the applicant has himself not complied with his obligations under Rule 16.1.
12By no later than December 2, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondent his arguably relevant documents, and file a confirmation of delivery with the Tribunal. If the applicant has not complied with this direction, or communicated with the Tribunal at all by December 5, 2016, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
Witness Statements and Filing Documents with Tribunal
13The parties are both further reminded that in addition, the Notice of Hearing advised that under Tribunal Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17, they are obliged to provide the following things by no later than December 5, 2016:
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;
copies of each of these documents for the Tribunal; and
a list of witnesses with witness statements setting out the intended evidence of each witness – to one another and to the Tribunal.
14The applicant is reminded that he must also submit a witness statement for himself, assuming he intends to testify at the hearing. However, if the applicant only intends to testify about the facts already contained in his Application and Reply, it is sufficient for the purposes of Rule 17 for him to confirm this in writing with the Tribunal and other parties by December 5, 2016.
15The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure are available at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/ under “Law, Rules, Decisions”.
16The 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”.
Orders and Directions
17The applicant’s request to defer the Application is refused.
18The applicant’s request to adjourn or reschedule the January 18, 2017 hearing date is refused.
19The respondent’s request for a summary hearing is refused.
20The applicant shall comply with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and deliver his arguably relevant documents to the respondent, and file confirmation of delivery with the Tribunal, by December 2, 2016.
21The Tribunal may issue further directions as appropriate.
22I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 29^th^ day of November, 2016.
“Signed By”
Bruce Best
Vice-chair