John Nahirny v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Ron Scarcello, 2016 HRTO 543

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

John Nahirny

Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Ron Scarcello

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir
Date: April 25, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 543
Indexed as: Nahirny v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Ron Scarcello

1This case was scheduled for hearing on June 27 and 28, 2016. The respondent made a timely request to re-schedule the hearing. In their request to re-schedule, the respondent indicated that they were available on July 14 and 15 and September 15 and 16, 2016.

2In correspondence dated March 8, 2016 the Tribunal granted the timely request to reschedule. The Tribunal also indicated that it was available on the alternate dates provided by the respondents. The applicant was directed to confirm his availability on those dates or provide alternative dates by March 18, 2016.

3The applicant did not respond to this direction.

4On March 30, 2016 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again. The Tribunal reminded the applicant of the March 8, 2016 correspondence above. The Tribunal directed that the applicant confirm his intentions to proceed further with this Application and if he intended to proceed further the applicant was directed to respond to the March 8, 2016 letter. The Tribunal reminded the applicant about Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which provides:

The Tribunal may finally determine an Application without further notice to any person who cannot be contacted by the Tribunal according to the contact information provided to the Tribunal by that person.

5The applicant was directed to respond to the Tribunal’s Directions by April 11, 2016 failing which the Tribunal may deem the Application to be abandoned.

6The applicant has not complied with the Directions above.

7On April 6, 2016 the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request). The respondents were directed that they need not respond to the Request unless directed to do so.

8The Request is dismissed.

9In his Request the applicant seeks three orders;

10The first Order in the Request is for adequate reasons for granting the respondent’s request to reschedule the hearing. This aspect of the Request is dismissed because it is premised on the false assertion by the applicant that that the respondents Request for re-scheduling is untimely. The request to reschedule was timely and was granted. The applicant also argues that the respondent has not articulated any exceptional circumstances to justify the re-scheduling of the hearing. Exceptional circumstances are not required when there is a timely request for rescheduling.

11The second Order sought is one that would require that the respondent provide to him unbound copies of documents. I understand that the respondent has been providing documents in a binder. Aside from the fact that this appears to be a reasonable response to the applicant’s request, there is no legal basis to this aspect of the Request and it is denied.

12The final order sought is a meeting with a person at the Tribunal to discuss options and procedures that would prevent the Tribunal from violating the applicant’s human rights and the Tribunal’s own statutory mandate. The applicant also seeks the production of all of the Tribunal’s policies and procedures on accommodating parties with disabilities.

13This final Request is denied. The applicant has repeatedly asserted that he requires accommodation in the Tribunal process but it is not entirely clear what it is he is seeking by way of accommodation. When he has requested extensions of time these have generally been granted. The applicant also makes it extremely difficult to respond to his submissions as they are typically voluminous, confusing and contradictory – things may have been missed. In any case, the applicant provides no basis for this aspect of the Request. He claims that one request for an extension of time was not granted but he was able to meet the deadline in any event. The Tribunal routinely grants extensions to parties unless and until they begin to substantially interfere with the Tribunal process, are unfair to the other parties or amount to an abuse of process. If the applicant has a specific request for accommodation, he must make a request in writing setting out the specific accommodation needs and the Code based basis for the Request.

Order

14The Tribunal makes the following Directions:

a. The applicant’s Request is denied.

b. The applicant will respond to the Tribunal’s correspondence dated March 8 and March 30, 2016 by May 2, 2016 failing which this Application will be dismissed as abandoned. For the sake of clarity the applicant must confirm his availability on the dates providedor provide alternative dates for the hearing of this case.

15I am not seized of this case.