Curtis v. Douglas, 2008 HRTO 144

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David R. Curtis Applicant

-and-

Norman Douglas, Pamela Borghesan, Wesley Rowsom, Bruce Long, Terrance Carter, D. Ann Walters, Margot Hornseth, Karen Kinzett, Kevin Kinzett, Lenn Curtis, Charlene LaPierre and Francine Harris Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: October 10, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 144 Indexed as: Curtis v. Douglas

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 314-8419 / Fax (416) 314-8743 / Toll free 1-866-598-0322 TTY (416) 314-2379 / (toll free) 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar-transition@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1The applicant filed an Application on July 17, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) against the named respondents

2The Tribunal confirmed receipt of the Application on July 28, 2008, but advised that it would not be processed because it was incomplete.

3On September 18, the Tribunal sent a notice of confirmation of receipt of a completed application to the parties and issued a notice of mediation scheduled for November 4, 2008. On September 26, 2008 the Tribunal sent an amended notice of confirmation of receipt and directed the respondents to file their response to the Application within 35 days of that notice. The amended notice corrected the spelling of the name of one of the respondents and removed the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (the Ministry) as a party.

Request to Add Party

4On October 3, 2008 the applicant requested the Tribunal to add the Ministry as a party.

5The Commission complaint which gives rise to this Application did not name the Ministry as a respondent.

6Section 53(3) applications must be based on the “subject-matter of the complaint” originally filed at the Commission. The parties named in the original complaint are the parties to the Application. Thus, the Ministry is not a party to this Application at this time. Rule 5.15 provides that requests to add parties will only be considered in exceptional circumstances which do not exist at this stage of the proceedings.

Jurisdiction to Hear Application

7On June 25, 2008 the Ontario Human Rights Commission issued a decision dismissing Commission complaint JPEG-5WGJZ2 which forms the subject matter of the present Application under section 34(1)(b) of the Code on the basis that the complaint contains no allegations against the respondents which, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the Code grounds cited.

8Rule 4.2 provides that the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, dismiss all or part of an Application that is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

9It appears to the Tribunal that there may be an issue whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this Application. More particularly, it is not clear whether this is continued complaint within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Code.

10Section 53(3) of the Code provides:

Subject to subsection (4), at any time during the six-month period referred to in subsection (2), the person who made a complaint that is continued under that subsection may, in accordance with the Tribunal rules, elect to abandon the complaint and make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the subject-matter of the complaint.

11The Tribunal requires additional information and submissions from applicant on this issue.

12In the circumstances, the mediation scheduled for November 4, 2008 is cancelled.

13Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the applicant shall deliver to each respondent (and file a Form C with respect to each respondent) and file with the Tribunal:

• any correspondence to and from the Commission relating to the Commission’s decision to dismiss the application, including a request for reconsideration, if any, and the Commission’s response, if any.
• written submissions setting out the applicant’s position on whether this is a “continued complaint” within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Code.

14The respondents are not required to file a response to the Application or the jurisdictional issue at this time.

15Upon review of the submissions, the Tribunal may determine the jurisdictional question on the basis of the written submissions.