Samra v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2016 HRTO 942

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jaspal Samra

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry

of the Attorney General, John Kromkamp and Huguette Thomson

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: July 18, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 942

Indexed as: Samra v. Ontario (Attorney General)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jaspal Samra, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, John Kromkamp and Huguette Thomson, Respondents

Jon Bradbury, Counsel

1A hearing in respect of this Application was scheduled for June 8, 2016 in Toronto.

2On May 31, 2016, the Tribunal issued a decision, 2016 HRTO 742, dismissing the Application as abandoned (“abandonment decision”) because it appeared the applicant had not responded by May 30, 2016 to the May 16, 2016 Case Assessment direction (“CAD”) that alerted the applicant to the fact that he had failed to comply with Rule 16.1 of the HRTO’s Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses because he had failed to provide his witness statements and documents to be relied on at the hearing to the respondent and the Tribunal by no later than May 30, 2016. The original date for providing this material was May 24, 2016, but it was extended to May 30, 2016 at the request of the applicant.

3On June 10, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the abandonment decision. As indicated in the Request and as confirmed by the Tribunal, the applicant, in fact, did file with the Tribunal a request on May 30, 2016, on notice to the Respondents, that he be granted further time to provide the materials required by Rule 16.1.

reconsideration

4Under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the Tribunal may, at the request of a party, reconsider its decision in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules:

45.7(1) Any party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may request that the Tribunal reconsider its decisions in accordance with The Tribunal rules.

5The Tribunal’s reconsideration powers are set out in the Practice Direction on Reconsideration, January 2008, last amended April 2014. Most relevant to this Decision is Rule 26 which states in part:

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.

6In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant did not intend to abandon the Application.

7The Tribunal grants the reconsideration in this case.

8The respondents’ position is that the reconsideration should be denied. The respondents have provided extensive and compelling submissions in support of their position. Nevertheless, I find that the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding is as follows.

order and Direction

9The reconsideration is granted and the Application is not dismissed.

10The Tribunal will schedule a new one-day hearing date.

11Within two weeks of the date of this Reconsideration Decision, the applicant must deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal the documents he intends to rely upon at the hearing, a list of his witnesses and a brief statement describing what his witnesses will say. These materials shall be limited to and be relevant to the issues properly before the Tribunal as outlined in the Tribunal’s Interim Decision in this matter, 2015 HRTO 1526.

12If the applicant does not provide the above-noted materials within the time indicated above, the Application may be dismissed as abandoned with no further warnings.