Williams v. Park Property Management Inc., Board of Inquiry, May 1996 BOI 96-014-I

6 Pages·1996·0.21 MB·English

by  Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario/Board of Inquiry

BOARD OF INQUIRY {Human Rights Code)
Onlarlo
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER OF the complaint by Andrea Williams, dated November 15, 1991,
alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, reprisal by Erick
Hartrick. Ron Dalton, Park Property Management Inc., and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium
Corporation #539.
BETWEEN:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
- and -
Andrea Williams
Complainant
- and -
Park Property Management Inc., Metropolitan Toronto
Condominium Corporation #539, Erik Hartrick, Ron Dalton,
George Davies
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator Sri-Guggan Sri-Skanda-Rajah
Date May 3, 1996
Board File No: BI-0086-96
Decision No 96-014-1
Board ofInquiry {HumanRights Code)
150 Eglinton Avenue East
5thFloor, Toronto ON M4P 1E8
Phone [phone] Fax: [phone] Toll free 1-800-668-3946
O:BI\96\3MAY96IN.

APPEARANCES
Ontario Human Rights Commission Isfahan Merali, Counsel
Andrea Williams, Complainant Paulette Haynes, Counsel
)
Park Property Management Inc. Ron Dalton, Barry Prentice, Counsel
, )
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium
)
Corporation #539, George Davies, Respondents) Richard J. Nixon, Counsel
)
O:\BI\96\3MAY96IN.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY
The hearing ofthe complaint was commenced by teleconference call on Friday, March 22, 1996.
At the commencement counsel for the Commission brought a motion to remove both Metropolitan
Toronto Condominium Corporation # 539 and Mr. George Davies as Respondents and Parties in
the matter. It was understood by me that the motion was on consent of all parties.
On that basis I granted the motion to remove both Metropolitan Toronto Condominium
Corporation # 539 and Mr. George Davies as Respondents as well as Parties in the matter.
Whilst continuing the hearing by teleconference call I became aware that none of the counsel
participating in it was representing the interest of Mr. Erick Hartrick one of the personal
respondents.
At this point I decided to terminate the teleconference call because Mr. Hartrick was neither a
participant nor was his interest represented. At that time I indicated that I would be arranging
another teleconference call through the Deputy Registrar.
I have decided to review the March 22, 1996 teleconference call's substance and have come to the
following conclusions.
1) That since Mr. Hartrick was unrepresented and was not a participant, I did
not have his consent to the Commission's motion.
2) Since I did not have the consent of all parties, I have to reverse my earlier
decision.
3) In these circumstances I have to convene the continuation of the hearing to
hear the motion in full.
O:\BI\96\3May96.int
ORDER:
1) That an inperson hearing of the motion be scheduled by the Deputy
Registrar in consultation with all parties inclusive ofMetropolitan Toronto
Condominium Corporation # 539 and Mr. George Davies.
2) That all motions to be heard be in writing and comply with Rule 41 and 42
ofthe Interim Rules of the Board ofInquiry.
Dated at Toronto this 3rd day ofMay, 1996.
Member Board ofInquiry.
O:\BI\96\3May96.int