Orlando Prescod v. National Steel Car Limited and United Steelworkers of America, Local 7135, 2009 HRTO 1246

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Orlando Prescod

Applicant

-and-

National Steel Car Limited and United Steelworkers of America, Local 7135

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 12, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1246

Indexed as: Prescod v. National Steel Car

1This Decision deals with whether the Tribunal can accept an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application was filed on May 5, 2009 and alleges discrimination on a number of grounds. The Application has not been sent to the respondents.

2On June 19, 2009, the Tribunal sent Notice to the applicant to advise that it appeared that the Tribunal might not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application because it was filed more than a year after the alleged discrimination occurred and because the subject-matter of the Application was 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.

3The applicant was asked to make submissions on these issues. He provided submissions in a letter dated July 7, 2009. His submissions deal with the issue of the delay in filing the Application. They do not deal with whether the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as the complaint that he filed with the Commission.

4Section 53(8) of the Code provides:

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.

5Sub-sections (3) and (5) concern procedures for complaints filed with the Commission that were not resolved by June 30, 2008, when the Code was amended.

6The applicant filed a complaint with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code. The Commission dismissed the complaint. The applicant asked the Commission to reconsider its decision, but the request for reconsideration was denied.

7My review of the Application that the applicant has now filed with the Tribunal indicates that the subject-matter of the Application is substantially the same as the subject-matter of the complaint that was filed with the Commission. It follows that the applicant cannot bring the Application to the Tribunal and the Application must be dismissed on that basis. Given this, it is not necessary to deal with the delay in bringing the Application.