Mandelzys v. York Region District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1676

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ian Mandelzys

Applicant

-and-

York Region District School Board, Bill Hogarth,

Helen Fox and John Tsourounis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 14, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1676

Indexed as: Mandelzys v. York Region District School Board

1This Application was first received by the Tribunal on June 26, 2009, and again on June 30, 2009. The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to have the Application dismissed as filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Legislation

2As of June 30, 2008, the system for enforcing rights under the Code has been significantly amended. Before, individual complaints were only heard by the Tribunal if the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) decided to refer them for a hearing. Now, applicants may file their claims (now called applications) directly with the Tribunal. The Legislature made provision for complainants who had filed complaints with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, to file transitional Applications with the Tribunal during the period June 30, 2008 to June 30, 2009.

3The transition provisions are set out in section 53:

53(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.

(4) The Tribunal shall make rules with respect to the practices and procedures that apply to an application under subsection (3) in order to ensure that the applications are dealt with in an expeditious manner.

(5) If, after the end of the six-month period referred to in subsection (2), the Commission has failed to deal with the merits of a complaint continued under that subsection and the complaint has not been withdrawn or settled, the complainant may make an application to the Tribunal with respect to the subject-matter of the complaint within a further six-month period after the end of the earlier six-month period.

(6) The new Part IV applies to an application made under subsections (3) and (5) ….

(8) 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.

4From June 30, 2008, until December 31, 2008, applicants could file section 53(3) applications and from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2009, applicants could file section 53(5) applications with respect to “continued” complaints. The statutory deadline for making a transitional application was June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal’s Rules

5The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications set out the steps required to file a transitional application:

12.1 To file a section 53(5) Application an Applicant must complete the Application (Form TR-1), deliver it to the Respondent(s) and file it with the Tribunal. A complete Application must provide the information requested in every section of the Application form and must include all required attachments.

12.2 The completed section 53(5) Application (Form TR-1) must be filed between January 1 and June 30, 2009 and must include:

a) the complaint or the amended complaint filed at the Commission; and,

b) the Commission complaint file number.

The Chronology

6On June 26, 2009, the Tribunal received a section 53(5) application (TR-1) by email attaching the original complaint. The TR-1 listed only the respondent Bill Hogarth. However, the Statements of Delivery indicated that the TR-1 and the complaint were served on all three personal respondents by email.

7On June 30, 2009, at 6:28 p.m. the Tribunal received a revised TR-1 naming all the respondents and at 6:40 p.m. received revised Statement of Deliveries indicating that the revised forms had been delivered to the respondents by email and on respondents’ counsel by registered mail.

Analysis

8Section 53(5) effectively sets a deadline of June 30, 2009, for when a transitional application may be “made” to the Tribunal.

9I agree with the respondents that June 30, 2009, is a statutory deadline and I have no discretion to waive or extend that deadline. However, I do have to determine when an application is “made” to the Tribunal and in doing so I have the discretion to waive the Tribunal Rules.

10In my view, an application is made to the Tribunal if an applicant has filed sufficient material with the Tribunal by June 30, 2009, to indicate their intention to make an application. In some cases, the TR-1 form may suffice. In other cases, the original Commission complaint may suffice.

11Delivery of the application to the respondent is one of the most difficult aspects of the process to complete successfully. Although the Commission generally provided the complainant with the contact information for the respondents and their counsel, Tribunal experience has shown that corporate respondents may refuse to accept delivery on behalf of personal respondents, regardless of whether they continue to work for the corporate respondent, may refuse to disclose contact information for personal respondents so that delivery can be made directly to them, and may refuse to accept service delivered upon their counsel who represented them at the Commission. Understandably, this makes the delivery process difficult. Thus, sufficiency of the statement of delivery will generally not affect the date on which the application is considered to have been made to the Tribunal.

12My discretion to waive the Tribunal Rules is set out in Rule 4.3:

4.3 To ensure the fair, just and highly expeditious resolution of an Application under section 53(3) or section 53(5) of the Code the Tribunal may:

c) vary or waive the application of these Rules at any time on its own initiative or on the request of a party, with or without terms;

13In the circumstances of this case, I have exercised my discretion to relieve against the technical requirements of Rule 12 regarding the filing of an application. Having regard to the fact that the respondents were aware of the complaints since 2007, and the personal respondents had been served with material clearly indicating that the applicant was attempting to file a transition application on June 26, 2009, I find that these are appropriate circumstances to relieve against the strict application of the Rules.

14The revised TR-1 clearly indicates that the applicant intended to proceed against the organizational respondents as well as the personal respondents. With respect to the delivery of the revised Application by email after 5:00 p.m., I exercise my discretion to waive the Tribunal Rules and permit delivery by email and to deem the material to have been received on June 30, 2009.

15I find that the Application against all the respondents was made prior to the statutory deadline.

16The respondents have not indicated an interest in mediation. The Tribunal will contact the parties to set a date for the hearing.