HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Adam Mansouri
Applicant
-and-
Proco Machinery Inc.
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Mansouri v. Proco Machinery Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Adam Mansouri, Applicant
Self-represented
Proco Machinery Inc., Respondent
James LeNoury, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The Application was scheduled to be heard on April 1, 2016.
2On November 3, 2015, the Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Hearing directing them to take certain steps in advance of the hearing. In particular, and among other things, the Notice of Hearing directed the parties to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by providing one another with copies of their arguably relevant documents within 21 days of the date of the Notice of Hearing; and by exchanging with one another and filing with the Tribunal the documents they intended to rely upon at the hearing, a list of their witnesses and a summary of their witnesses’ anticipated evidence by no later than February 16, 2016 (i.e. 45 days before the first scheduled day of hearing).
3The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with the materials required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure by February 16, 2016.
4Accordingly, in a March 11, 2016 Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required materials to the respondents and the Tribunal by no later than March 18, 2016. In its CAD, the Tribunal warned the applicant that there were serious consequences for the case if he did not comply with the Tribunal’s directions. In particular, the Tribunal’s CAD contained the following directions to the applicant:
By no later than March 18, 2016, the applicant must deliver to the respondent his arguably relevant documents.
By the same date, the applicant must deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal: (1) confirmation of delivery of his arguably relevant documents to the respondent; (2) a list and copy of the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing; (3) a list of his witnesses; and (4) a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say when they testify.
The 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, if any), it is sufficient for him to confirm this in writing by March 18, 2016.
If the applicant has not complied with these directions by March 18, 2016, or communicated with the Tribunal at all, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.
5On March 22, 2016, when the applicant had not complied with the above March 18, 2016 deadline for filing any witness statements or documents, the Tribunal issued a Decision indicating that it appeared the applicant had abandoned his Application, and dismissed the Application (2016 HRTO 368).
reconsideration request
6The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, indicating that he had emailed the Tribunal on March 16, 2016 in response to the March 11, 2016 CAD. He attached his March 16, 2016 email which said that he had no witnesses, but which implied that he would be a witness himself. He also implied that he had no documents upon which he intended to rely. He referred in his March 16, 2016 email to a communication to the respondent’s president, but did not attach that communication to the email.
7The applicant also attached to his Request for Reconsideration an email back to him from the Registrar dated March 17, 2016 which told the applicant that his March 16, 2016 email to the Tribunal cannot be added to his file because it was not copied to the respondent. (The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure require each party to copy all other parties on any communication to the Tribunal). The Registrar told him to send it again, copying the respondent, and to provide documents as directed in the March 11, 2016 CAD, but the applicant submits that he did not understand what the Registrar directed:
When I was directed to resubmit my email and cc [the respondent] I assumed it was the same as forwarding my email to him. I thought I had complied with the Case [Assessment] Direction.
8In the Response to the Request for Reconsideration, the respondent argues that the Tribunal should not reconsider the dismissal of the Application because the applicant not only failed to comply with the directions in the Notice of Hearing and in the March 11, 2016 CAD, but also he failed to correct his mistakes after the March 17, 2016 email from the Registrar refused his documents, directing him to comply with the March 11, 2016 CAD and refile, copying the respondent. In the interest of finality, the respondent urges the Tribunal to deny the Request for Reconsideration.
decision
9Upon a request section 45.7 of the Code, the Tribunal may reconsider its decisions in accordance with Tribunal’s Rules.
10Rule 26 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
26.1 Any party may request reconsideration of a final decision of the Tribunal within (thirty) 30 days of the date of the decision.
26.5 A Request for Reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that
(d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.
11In this case, the applicant responded to the Tribunal’s March 11, 2016 CAD but his email was received in the general email box and not added to the Tribunal file because he did not copy the respondent. In dismissing the Application, the Tribunal was unaware that the applicant intended to proceed, but simply had no intention to call any witness but himself. I am satisfied that the applicant did not intend to abandon the Application which is a factor that I find outweighs the importance of finality, particularly in these circumstances where the applicant attempted to comply with the March 11, 2016 CAD, and thought that he had complied.
12Given that the applicant has filed no witness statement for himself, however, his testimony is restricted to the issues and alleged facts described in the Application. Also, he will not be permitted to rely upon any document that was not filed before today’s date.
ORDER
13The Tribunal grants the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration, and the Application is not dismissed.
Next step
14The Tribunal will schedule a one-day hearing at which the applicant will be permitted to call only himself as a witness, no one else, and at which he will be able to rely upon only those documents which have already been exchanged between the parties.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2016.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair```