Michael LeBlanc v. Pro Line Recreation Sales and Service, 2016 HRTO 761

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael LeBlanc

Applicant

-and-

Pro Line Recreation Sales and Service

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: June 3, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 761

Indexed as: LeBlanc v. Pro Line Recreation Sales and Service

1The Tribunal reconsiders Decision 2016 HRTO 732 of its own motion.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that he was discriminated against for being white, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was scheduled to be heard on June 17, 2016.

3In a May 18, 2016 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), I directed the parties to make the pre-hearing disclosure required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s /rules of Procedure.

4The applicant filed the required materials on May 26, 2016. However, I was not aware of these materials due to upgrades to the Tribunal’s electronic case management system.

5I dismissed the Application as abandoned due to what appeared to be the applicant’s failure to respond to my CAD.

6The issues with the uploading of the applicant’s materials have now been corrected. In light of the fact that the applicant did respond to my CAD, the Registrar will reschedule the hearing for the Application.

pre-hearing directions to parties

7Having reviewed the Application and the applicant’s witness statement, it is clear that there is only one issue to be addressed at the hearing. The sole issue is whether the applicant was discriminated against when a lifeguard named “Abdul” allegedly required him and other white people to sign in to use the pool area at his building when non-white people allegedly were not. This allegedly occurred from July 2015 onwards.

8I see from the applicant’s disclosure that he has raised a number of other non-Code-related issues with the property management company for his building. I will not be hearing any evidence in relation to these non-Code-related issues. I will only hear evidence in relation to the allegation set out in the Application.

9I note that the respondent has not filed any witness statements or documents in response to my CAD. The respondent should call “Abdul” to testify at the hearing since his testimony would be central to this case. If “Abdul” is no longer employed with the respondent, the respondent can issue a summons to “Abdul” requiring him to appear to testify at the hearing. The respondent can download the “Summons to Witness” form (Form 24) on the Tribunal’s website at http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/forms-filing/.

ORDER

10The Tribunal reconsiders Decision 2016 HRTO 732 of its own motion. The decision to dismiss the Application as abandoned is set aside. The Registrar will reschedule the one-day hearing and advise the parties of the date of the hearing by Notice of Hearing.