Andrew Lawrence v. Chrysler Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 1590

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Lawrence

Applicant

-and-

Chrysler Canada Inc., Rick Marshall, Dave Wallace and Gordon Kirby

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1590

Indexed as: Lawrence v. Chrysler Canada

Introduction

1This is an Application filed June 30, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission ("Commission") on July 20, 2005 and abandoned upon the filing of the current application.

2The respondents submitted that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with this Application because the complaint upon which the Application is based was dismissed by the Commission before the applicant filed the present Application and the applicant did not file a timely request for reconsideration.

3This decision is based upon the written submissions filed by the respondents. The applicant did not file any submissions on this issue.

Decision

4On August 27, 2008, the Commission decided not to refer the complaint to the Tribunal. By letter dated September 2, 2008, the Commission advised the applicant that she had 15 days to file a request for reconsideration. Based on the material before me, it appears that no request for reconsideration was made.

5Instead, on June 30, 2009, the applicant attempted to abandon the complaint and file the current Application.

6The transitional provisions of the Code provide that the complainant to a complaint filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008 which is continued at the Commission, may abandon the complaint and file an Application under section 53(3).

7In my view, the applicant's complaint was not "continued" at the Commission on June 30, 2009 the day he attempted to abandon it. This is because the Commission had dismissed his complaint on August 28, 2008 and he did not file a request for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Commission decision effectively dismissed his complaint and it was no longer continued.

8The relevant provisions of section 53 of the Code provide:

(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. (emphasis added).

9I find that the applicant may not file the present application and it is dismissed.