Khaiter v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 1597
CITATION: Khaiter v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 1597
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 19/10
DATE: 20110311
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
DR. PETER A. KHAITER
Applicant
– and –
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO (“HRTO”, ‘TRIBUNAL”) and DAVID MUIR, HRTO VICE-CHAIR and YORK UNIVERSITY (“YU”, “UNIVERSITY”, “YORK”) and MADMOUH SHOUKRI, YU PRESIDENT and LORNA MARSDEN, YU EX-PRESIDENT, and SHEILA EMBLETON, YU EX-VICE PRESIDENT, GARY BREWER, YU VICE PRESIDENT, and RHONDA LENTON, YU ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT and BARRY MILLER, YU EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FACULTY RELATIONS and PAUL CRAVEN, YU PROFESSOR
Respondents
In Person
Margaret Leighton, for the Respondents, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and David Muir
Frank Cesario, for the Respondents, York University, Madmouh Shoukri, Lorna Marsden, Sheila Embleton, Gary Brewer, Rhonda Lenton and Barry Miller
David C. Moore, for the Respondent, Paul Craven
HEARD at Toronto: March 11, 2011
HERMAN J. (ORALLY)
[1] Dr. Khaiter seeks various forms of relief. I will deal with each in turn.
(i) Setting Aside the Order of the Registrar, dated February 3, 2011
[2] Dr. Khaiter says he did not receive the required notice under Rule 68.06(2) and has provided evidence that the letter containing the notice had the incorrect postal code. I am prepared to accept that he did not receive the required notice.
[3] The respondents submit that given the circumstances in this case, I should not exercise my discretion to set aside the dismissal. Dr. Khaiter is entitled to receive the notice. If there are other circumstances which, in the opinion of any of the respondents would warrant dismissing this application, these would best be addressed by way of a separate motion. The dismissal by the Registrar is therefore set aside without prejudice to any of the respondents bringing a motion to quash or dismiss the application on any other grounds including delay.
(ii) Order to Amend the Application to include the Final Decision of the Human Rights Tribunal dated September 21, 2010
[4] In my opinion, it makes sense for any judicial review of the final decision of the Tribunal to be heard along with the judicial review of the other decisions. Dr. Khaiter is therefore given leave to file and serve an amended application to include this decision, within fourteen days.
(iii) Proposed Scheduling
[5] In view of Dr. Khaiter’s proposed addition of new parties, it is difficult to set out a schedule. If Dr. Khaiter seeks to add further parties he shall deliver a notice of motion on the proposed additional parties within fourteen days. That matter should proceed expeditiously. Once this issue is determined, the parties may, at the request of any one of the parties, return to this Court for directions.
(iv) Correspondence from the Court
[6] Dr. Khaiter asks that the Court communicate to him by a form of traceable communications. Communications from the Court will be by fax.
(v) Conduct of Counsel
[7] Dr. Khaiter seeks various forms of relief addressing the conduct of counsel. I have nothing before me that would provide a basis for granting such relief.
[8] There will be no costs of this motion.
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 11, 2011
Date of Release: March 22, 2011
CITATION: Khaiter v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 1597
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 19/10
DATE: 20110311
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HERMAN J.
BETWEEN:
DR. PETER A. KHAITER
Applicant
– and –
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO (“HRTO”, ‘TRIBUNAL”) and DAVID MUIR, HRTO VICE-CHAIR and YORK UNIVERSITY (“YU”, “UNIVERSITY”, “YORK”) and MADMOUH SHOUKRI, YU PRESIDENT and LORNA MARSDEN, YU EX-PRESIDENT, and SHEILA EMBLETON, YU EX-VICE PRESIDENT, GARY BREWER, YU VICE PRESIDENT, and RHONDA LENTON, YU ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT and BARRY MILLER, YU EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FACULTY RELATIONS and PAUL CRAVEN, YU PROFESSOR
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 11, 2011
Date of Release: March 22, 2011