2012 Onsc 4802
2012 Onsc 4802
2012 Onsc 4802
ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN: )
)
IAN EISENBERG ) In Person
)
Applicant )
)
– and – )
)
SENECA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS ) Ann E. Burke, for the Respondent, Seneca
AND TECHNOLOGY, CHERYL BAIN, ) College of Applied Arts and Technology
AL WOODWARD and the HUMAN )
RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO ) Brian A. Blumenthal, for the Respondent,
) Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Respondents )
)
)
) HEARD at Toronto: August 21, 2012
NORDHEIMER J. (ORALLY)
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of
Ontario dated February 14, 2012 in which the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s complaint as
abandoned.
Page: 2
[2] The applicant was enrolled in the paralegal program at Seneca College. On June 15,
2010, the applicant complained to the Human Rights Tribunal that the College had discriminated
[3] The College responded to this complaint and sought a dismissal of it on the basis that the
complaint was not filed in a timely fashion and that certain of the allegations made by the
applicant were outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The applicant then sought the direction of
[4] On May 17, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held. The rules of the
because it stands no reasonable chance of success. As stated by the Tribunal in its decision:
[5] Subsequent to this direction, the Tribunal, in accordance with its normal practice, advised
the applicant that his request for documents would be addressed after the summary hearing had
been determined. Thereafter the Tribunal sought dates from both parties for the summary
hearing.
[6] On January 3, 2012, the applicant responded to the Tribunal and advised that he would
not provide dates until his request for documents was answered.
Page: 3
[7] On January 27, 2012, the Tribunal reiterated to the applicant that his request for
documents would be dealt with after the summary hearing was held and repeated its requests for
[8] On February 1, 2012, the applicant called his case officer at the Tribunal and advised that
[9] On February 14, 2012, the Tribunal released its decision in which it dismissed the
applicant’s complaint as abandoned since the applicant had not provided dates for the summary
hearing.
[10] In terms of this application for judicial review, we begin by stating that the test for this
application is whether the decision of the Tribunal was reasonable in the circumstances. In that
regard, we note that the procedural issues involved are ones that fall within the ambit of the
made by the applicant that underlie his complaint to the Tribunal. It is important to remember
that the issue in this application is not the merits of the complaint. Rather, it is whether the
Tribunal acted reasonably in dismissing the applicant’s complaint in light of the actions of the
[12] Before addressing that issue, however, we feel compelled to address the applicant’s
concerns regarding the departure of Vice Chair Liang who directed that the summary hearing be
Page: 4
held. The applicant submits the Tribunal ought to have revisited that direction once the Vice
Chair was no longer a member of the Tribunal. We see no merit to that submission. The Vice
Chair made a reasonable procedural decision at the time as to how the applicant’s complaint
[13] Given the reaction of the applicant to the Tribunal’s decision to hold such a hearing and
his refusal to co-operate in its scheduling, we are of the view that the Tribunal acted reasonably
in dismissing his complaint. Indeed, we do not see that the Tribunal had any realistic alternative
but to do so. The Tribunal was entitled to hold a summary hearing. The Tribunal was also
entitled to postpone any ruling on the applicant’s request for documents until the summary
hearing was held. The applicant’s unilateral refusal to provide dates for the summary hearing
effectively thwarted the Tribunal’s process. If the applicant was not prepared to co-operate with
the Tribunal in its process, the Tribunal was entirely within its rights to dismiss the applicant’s
complaint.
SWINTON J.
[15] I have endorsed the Appeal Record, “The application is dismissed for oral reasons
delivered in Court today. The Tribunal does not seek costs. Costs to the respondent Seneca
NORDHEIMER J.
Page: 5
SWINTON J.
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
IAN EISENBERG
Applicant
– and –
Respondents
NORDHEIMER J.