Aggarwal v. Sheridan College
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - DIVISIONAL COURT - ONTARIO
RE: Aggarwal v. Sheridan College
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Bharat Aggarwal, self-represented Applicant Dan Michaluk, for the Responding Party Jason Tam, for HRTO
CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT
1This endorsement reflects a case management teleconference held on August 11, 2020.
2This application for judicial review from the decisions of the HRTO dismissing the Applicant’s complaint against the Respondent Sheridan College (2020 HRTO 610, 2020 HRTO 199, 2019 HRTO 940) shall be heard by a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court on January 6, 2021 for an estimated 2.5 hours (1.5 hours for the applicant and 1.0 hours for the respondents).
3The application will be heard by ZOOM videoconference. The court will provide the parties with the link for the videoconference in due course. Neither counsel nor the court shall gown.
4The Applicant’s materials shall be served by August 31, 2020. The responding parties’ materials shall be served by October 30, 2020. Any reply materials shall be served by the Applicant by November 13, 2020.
5HRTO shall provide a password-protected download-only drop box from which materials may be downloaded and shall provide the court with the URL and password by November 17, 2020.
(a) All documents other than factums shall be uploaded to the drop box in pdf format.
(b) Documents should be labelled in a manner that identifies them clearly for members of the panel so that it is not necessary to open the document to understand what it is. Pages should be numbered sequentially within each pdf. If this is not practical, given the current state of the documents, then individual documents should be uploaded to the drop box in pdf form, so that each document is clearly labelled, enabling the court to find documents quickly.
(c) Factums are to be filed in Word and pdf formats. Where possible, factums should contain hyperlinks for authorities and, if possible, hyperlinks to a “Factum Compendium”, described below.
(d) Books of authorities containing the full text of authorities should not be uploaded to the drop box. However, citations to cases in the factums are to provide, if possible, a hyperlink to the version of cases. The only exceptions to this principle are authorities not available on , such as excerpts from textbooks, foreign law, or Canadian decisions not reported on : these should be collected in a small brief of unreported authorities and filed in the drop box.
(e) Parties may file a “Factum Compendium” containing single pages or brief portions of cases cited, and brief portions of evidence from the record referenced in the factum, hyperlinked from the factum. Where portions of cases are included in a compendium, the title of proceedings and headnote should be included as well. Where portions of the record are included in a Factum Compendium, the first page of the document and identification of where it may be found in the record should also be provided.
(f) The parties shall file their agreement on the disposition of costs, or, if the parties have not agreed as to costs, then each party shall file its bill of costs, costs outline and any brief supporting materials relied upon in respect to costs.
(g) Each party shall file a sheet setting out the name(s) of all persons appearing at the hearing and confirming their estimated times for oral argument.
(h) All parties are permitted to (but are not required to) file the following additional documents (in addition to documents permitted under the Rules):
(i) a Factum Compendium, described above; and
(ii) a compendium for oral argument, containing excerpts of evidence and authorities to which a party intends to refer in oral argument.
(i) All documents for use in the hearing are to be uploaded to the drop box by November 17, 2020, except that compendiums for oral argument, counsel sheets and costs materials may be uploaded by January 4, 2021.
6Parties are required to file one paper copy of any document filed for the hearing that previously has not been filed with the court in paper form, and to pay any required court fees, once the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.
7Respondents had not seen a copy of the Notice of Application prior to the teleconference. Therefore, the schedule was set on the basis of reasonable general practice for respondents. If a respondent is concerned with the schedule after reviewing the Notice of Application, it may request a further case management teleconference with an administrative judge of the Divisional Court.
8The applicant is directed to send responding counsel copies of his Notice of Application forthwith by email.
9Mr Tam was unable to commit to a deadline for delivery of the HRTO Record, given that he had no prior understanding of the application. The applicant, for his part, had concerns that items he considered important for his application might not be included in the Record provided by the HRTO. If any issues arise concerning the Record, the parties may schedule a further case management teleconference for directions. That said, the court expects the parties to act reasonably to try to settle any issues they have respecting the Record.
10The court discussed with the parties the real focus of this application and the importance of the parties directing their efforts to the issues on which the application will almost certainly turn. It is hoped that any concerns about the Record would be filtered in light of a practical assessment of the real issues in the application. In light of this discussion, I consider that I should not sit on the panel adjudicating the main application; I remain available to case manage the case.
11The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.
D.L. Corbett J.
Date: August 12, 2020