Curtis v. Douglas, 2008 HRTO 303

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David 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

CASE RESOLution conference DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: November 24, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 303

Indexed as: Curtis v. Douglas

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 the applicant that that the Application would not be processed because it was incomplete. The Application was substantially completed by September 18, 2008.

3The Tribunal asked the applicant for his written submissions on whether this is a continued application within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Code. The respondents were directed not to file a Response at that time.

4The applicant filed his written submissions on October 23, 2008.

Background

5In the complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission’) on January 3, 2008, the applicant made a wide ranging series of allegations against the respondents.

6On June 25, 2008 the Commission issued a decision dismissing the complaint which forms the subject matter of the present Application under section 34(1)(b) of the old Code, on the basis that the complaint contained no allegations against the respondents which, if proven, could amount to discrimination on the Code grounds cited. This decision was communicated to the applicant under cover of a letter dated July 3, 2008, advising the applicant that he had fifteen days from the date of the letter to seek reconsideration of the Commission’s decision.

7The applicant has not submitted any information or documents indicating that he made a request for reconsideration to the Commission.

Jurisdiction over the present Application

8As of June 30, 2008, the system for enforcing rights under the Code has been significantly amended. Before, individual complaints were only heard by the Tribunal if the Commission decided to refer them for a hearing. Now, applicants may file their claims (now called applications) directly with the Tribunal.

9The transition provisions of the amended Code address the situation of complainants who filed complaint with the Commission prior to the effective date of the new provisions, June 30, 2008.

10The following transition provisions are relevant to this decision:

53. (1) This section applies to a complaint filed with the Commission under subsection 32 (1) of the old Part IV or initiated by the Commission under subsection 32 (2) of the old Part IV before the effective date.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) and despite the repeal of the old Part IV, during the six-month period that begins on the effective date, the Commission shall continue to deal with complaints referred to in subsection (1) in accordance with subsection 32 (3) and sections 33, 34, 36, 37 and 43 of the old Part IV and, for that purpose,

(a) the Commission has all the powers described in subsection 32 (3) and sections 33, 34, 36, 37 and 43 of the old Part IV; and

(b) the provisions referred to in clause (a) continue to apply with respect to the complaints, with necessary modifications.

(3) 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.

11Essentially, from the effective date (June 30, 2008) until the expiration of the six month period (December 31, 2008), the Commission may continue to deal with a complaint filed prior to June 30, 2008. For example, the Commission may initiate an investigation, attempt to settle a complaint or refer a complaint to the Commissioners under section 34 or 36 of the old Code. A complainant who filed a complaint prior to June 30, 2008 that is continued at the Commission may choose to leave their complaint at the Commission until December 31, 2008 or may elect to abandon their complaint and file a section 53(3) application with the Tribunal with respect to subject matter of the complaint.

12The issue in this case is whether the applicant had a continued complaint before the Commission on July 17, 2008 when he filed the section 53(3) Application. In my view he did not.

13In this case, the Commission has dealt with the complaint which forms the subject matter of the present Application, in the form of a section 34 dismissal decision made June 25, 2008. Accordingly, this is not a continued complaint.

14The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the present Application. The Application is accordingly dismissed.