HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Windsor Police Service and Charles Sasso

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1438

Indexed as: Christianson v. Windsor Police Services

1The applicant filed an Application on December 23, 2008, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal in the area of goods, services and facilities on the basis of disability and association with a person identified by a Code protect ground.

2The respondents filed a Response on April 9, 2009.

3The parties’ materials appear to indicate that a previous human rights complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) regarding some or all of the subject-matter of the applicant’s current Application. The parties’ materials further appear to indicate that the previous human rights complaint may also be the subject matter of a Tribunal transition file (T-0864-08), which relates to a Commission complaint that was abandoned in order to file a section 53(3) Application with the Tribunal.

[4] Section 53(8) of the Code states that 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 of the Code. Section 53(3) permitted an applicant to abandon a complaint before the Commission and make a transitional application based on the subject-matter of that complaint to the Tribunal between June 30, 2008 and December 30, 2008.

5As such, under section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to accept a section 34 application in circumstances where the allegations contained in the application constituted the subject-matter or substantially the same subject-matter of a complaint previously filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code.

6After reviewing the parties’ materials and the accompanying documentary information, it appears that the section 34 Application, the previous human rights complaint and the transitional Application may deal with the same allegations of disability discrimination in reference to a similar period of time against the same respondents.

7Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following Order:

a. The hearing scheduled for September 23, 2009 is adjourned;

b. By September 28, 2009 the applicant shall deliver to the respondent and file with the Tribunal submissions on whether this Application is barred by virtue of section 53(8) of the Code. The submissions shall include any material facts and legal authorities upon which the applicant relies in support of his position;

c. By October 12, 2009, the respondent shall deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal submissions, additional facts and legal authorities upon which the respondent relies in support of its position; and

d. The applicant shall have until October 19, 2009 to deliver and file a reply, if any.

8The Tribunal may decide this matter on the basis of the parties written submissions or may issue further case management directions.