Bruce v. Greater Essex County District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1650

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kenneth Bruce

Applicant

-and-

Greater Essex County District School Board and Robert Colak

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: October 9, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1650 Indexed as: Bruce v. Greater Essex County District School Board

1This is an Application filed on March 19, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") (the "2009 Application"). It alleges reprisal contrary to the Code. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents' Request for early dismissal filed instead of a full Response.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed an earlier Application to the Tribunal on October 11, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Code (the "2008 Application") alleging discrimination and reprisal because of refusing sexual solicitations by one of the personal respondents who is not named as a respondent in the 2009 Application. The respondents in the 2008 Application, including the Greater Essex County District School Board, requested an early dismissal of the 2008 Application, and the Tribunal heard the matter in a Case Resolution Conference held earlier this year. The decision is pending.

3The applicant filed a request for an order during the proceedings of the 2008 Application, seeking to add the same incidents of alleged reprisal outlined in the 2009 Application. In a letter dated February 17, 2009, the Registrar advised the parties that it would deal later with the applicant's request to have his allegations of reprisal addressed as part of the 2008 Application:

The Tribunal acknowledges receipt of the applicant's request for an order during proceedings, seeking to add allegations of further breaches of the Code, including reprisal allegations. The respondents are not required to respond to this request for an order at this time. The Tribunal will first determine the requests for early dismissal at the scheduled Case Resolution Conference and will issue further directions regarding the applicant's request at or after that time.

4The respondents have requested that the Tribunal dismiss this 2009 Application on the basis that the applicant's request (in the proceedings for the 2008 Application) remains outstanding. They allege that this Application is therefore vexatious, made in bad faith and an abuse of process. They also allege that this Application is barred under section 53(8) of the Code.

5The applicant filed reply submissions.

DECISION

6In the 2008 Application, both the respondents' request to dismiss and the applicant's request to add a reprisal allegation are outstanding. It is therefore not clear whether the Tribunal will proceed to hear the 2008 Application, and if it does, whether that Application will encompass the reprisal allegations that are the subject of the 2009 Application. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer consideration of the respondents' request to dismiss the 2009 Application until after those issues have been determined by the Tribunal.

7The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). Deferral is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it. However, the same issues in this Application have been put before the Tribunal, the 2008 Application, which is presently considering whether to proceed with those issues. In these circumstances, deferring this Application is appropriate.

8The Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending its decision on whether the applicant's reprisal allegations will be heard as part of the 2008 Application. The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the Tribunal's decision has been issued. The respondents are not required to file a full Response pending further direction from the Tribunal.

9I am not seized.