Lancelot Kelly v. Bajwa Consultants Incorporated, 2017 HRTO 1138

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lancelot Kelly

Applicant

-and-

Bajwa Consultants Incorporated, Mohammad Maqsood Bajwa, Debra Levesque and Brian Murphy

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: September 1, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1138 Indexed as: Kelly v. Bajwa Consultants Incorporated

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lancelot Kelly, Applicant Self-represented

Bajwa Consultants Incorporated and Mohammad Maqsood Bajwa, Respondents Shiraz Bajwa, representative

Debra Levesque, respondent No one appearing

Brian Murphy, respondent No one appearing

1In this Application the applicant alleges discrimination in housing accommodation contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

2In his Application the applicant advised that the facts of the case are included in another proceeding which is ongoing.

3The Application was filed on May 8, 2017 but was incomplete. The Application appears to have been completed on or about June 26, 2017 and was delivered to the respondents on July 11, 2017.

4On July 28, 2017 the respondent Bajwa Consultants Incorporated made an ex parte request for an extension of time to file its Response (Form 2, due on August 15, 2017), to November 15, 2017. A short extension was granted administratively. This was done because the respondent did not wish to reveal the reasons for the lengthy request. The respondent advised at the time that the respondent Mohammed Bajwa, the principle of the organizational respondent, had passed away suddenly.

5The organizational respondent renewed its request on August 21, 2017 this time sharing the request and the reasons for it with the applicant. The applicant opposes the request.

6The request of the organizational respondent is granted.

7The circumstances here are somewhat extraordinary. Some or all of the facts in this case are included in another legal proceeding raising the question of whether or not this Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of that proceeding. Moreover the principle of the organizational respondent has passed away suddenly. The other identified respondents were employees of the personal and organizational respondent. I accept the assertions of the representatives of the Estate that they were not much involved in the business and have had trouble piecing together a Response. More practically until there is an appointment of an Estate Trustee, the Estate of Mr. Bajwa may not be able to participate in this proceeding. It appears that this is one of the issues that the Estate is dealing with but this does not happen overnight. I also observe that the respondents Levesque and Murphy have not responded to the Application as of yet and it is not clear whether they are being represented by the Bajwa respondents. In short there are a number of issues which must be dealt with before this Tribunal can process this Application further. In these particular circumstances there is no substantial prejudice to any party.

8The Tribunal makes the following Directions:

a. The respondents Bajwa Consultants Incorporated and Mohammad Maqsood Bajwa shall file their Response (Form 2) by November 15, 2017;

b. The Bajwa respondents will confirm that the respondents Levesque and Murphy intend to be included in the Response of the Bajwa respondents within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, failing which the respondents Levesque and Murphy will file their Response(s) (Form 2) to the Application within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision;

c. The applicant will deliver and file a copy of the decision of the Landlord & Tenant Board within 7 days of his receipt of it; and,

d. The Tribunal may make further Directions upon receipt of any the materials described above.

MEDIATION

9The parties have included in their submissions references to mediation. The Bajwa respondents appear to have suggested an informal resolution of their dispute. The applicant has advised that if the respondents are agreeable to mediation he is as well. For the parties information the Tribunal will not schedule a mediation prior to the filing of the Response (Form 2) and Reply (Form 3) if any is filed. However the parties are free to discuss their dispute on their own at any time outside of the Tribunal process.

10I am not seized of this case.