) ) JASPAL SAMRA Applicant – v. –, 2017 ONSC 1498

CITATION : Samra v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 1498 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 432/16 DATE: 20170303 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER and GILMORE JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) JASPAL SAMRA Applicant – and – KEITH BRENNESTUHL, HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, JOHN KROMKAMP, HUGUETTE THOMSON, THE QUEEN IN RIGHT ON ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jaspal Samra, in person Brian A.

Blumenthal , for the Respondent, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Heather Burnett , for the Respondent, Ministry of the Attorney General ) HEARD at Toronto: March 3, 2017 NORDHEIMER J. (Orally) [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review by Mr. Samra with respect to the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) dated August 12, 2016 to dismiss the applicant’s complaint. This was the second time that the complaint had been dismissed. After the first dismissal, the applicant sought to reinstate his complaint and the Tribunal agreed to do so in a decision dated July 18, 2016.

A new hearing date was set. In the Tribunal’s decision, the applicant was expressly ordered to provide all material in support of his complaint within two weeks of the decision. The applicant acknowledges that he failed to do that. He did send a letter dated August 17, 2016 saying that he did not intend to rely on any further material. The complaint however had been dismissed five days earlier for the applicant’s failure to file his material in accordance with the July order.

The applicant’s assertion that the Tribunal’s decision was actually made after his letter was received, but backdated to August 12, finds no support in the record. [ 2 ] The fact remains that the applicant has twice failed to comply with procedural orders of the Tribunal. In the interests of procedural fairness to all parties and in the interests of finality, the Tribunal was entitled to decide that no further indulgences should be granted to the applicant. [ 3 ] That was a reasonable decision for the Tribunal to take.

There is no principled basis upon which this court can interfere with that decision. [ 4 ] The applicant also asserts that the Tribunal is biased and that their decision to dismiss his complaint evidences that bias. In order to make a finding of bias, the grounds alleging bias must be substantial and there must be cogent evidence to support them in order to rebut the strong presumption of impartiality: Hazelton Lanes Inc. v. 1707590 Ontario Limited , 2014 ONCA 793 ; Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v. Yukon (Attorney General) 2015 SCC 25 .

In this case, that threshold has clearly not been met. [ 5 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. COSTS – Sachs J. [ 6 ] I have endorsed the back of the Application Record as follows: “This application is dismissed for oral reasons given by Nordheimer J. There will be no order as to costs.”

___________________________ NORDHEIMER J. I agree ___________________________ SACHS J. I agree ___________________________ GILMORE J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 3, 2017 Date of Release: March 10, 2017 CITATION : Samra v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 1498 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 432/16 DATE: 20170303 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, NORDHEIMER and GILMORE JJ. BETWEEN: JASPAL SAMRA Applicant – and – KEITH BRENNESTUHL, HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, JOHN KROMKAMP, HUGUETTE THOMSON, THE QUEEN IN RIGHT ON ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondents ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NORDHEIMER J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 3, 2017 Date of Release: March 10, 2017