Guzina v. Ontario (Environment), 2008 HRTO 57

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Vesna Guzina

Applicant

-and-

Ministry of the Environment

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: August 22, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 57

Indexed as: Guzina v. Ontario (Environment)

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor Toronto ON M7A 2A3 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 / Fax (416) 326-2199 / Toll Free1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website http://www.hrto.ca

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Vesna Guzina, Applicant ) On her own behalf

INTRODUCTION

1The application relates to a job competition conducted by the respondent in December 2004. The application indicates that a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), in 2006 and that it was dismissed by the Commission because of its timeliness.

2Ms. Guzina filed this application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on July 2, 2008. As portions of the application were incomplete, the applicant was directed to provide the missing information, which she did on July 29, 2008.

3On July 31, 2008, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, and did not serve the application on the respondent. The Notice of Intent to Dismiss noted both the fact that the application was filed more than a year after the last incident described in the application, and that “the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code [s. 53(8)].” The Tribunal invited submissions from the applicant as to why the application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal. The applicant provided such submissions by letter dated August 12, 2008.

DECISION

4It is unnecessary for me to address the issue of the timing of the application, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this matter. Section 53(8) of the Code reads as follows:

No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

Through this provision, the legislature has decided that an application under the new Code may not have the same subject-matter as a complaint that was previously filed with the Commission under the old Code.

5Ms. Guzina’s submissions suggest that it is her understanding that the Tribunal has the power to determine which applications it will hear, including applications that are the same as complaints that were previously filed with and determined by the Commission before applications could be filed with the Tribunal on June 30, 2008. This is not correct. The Tribunal must interpret the Code, and s. 53(8) provides that it has no power or jurisdiction to hear such applications. While the applicant disagrees strongly with the Commission’s decision to dismiss her complaint for delay, the Tribunal has no power to consider this matter.

ORDER

6The application is dismissed.