HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Mike Consiglio
Applicant
- and-
Toronto Transit Commission
Respondent
decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Consiglio v. Toronto Transit Commission
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 12, 2009 alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.
2On September 14, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss on the basis that it appeared that (i) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and (ii) the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as a previously filed complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”). The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days addressing these two issues.
3No submissions were received from the applicant in response to the Tribunal’s September 14, 2009 Notice.
BACKGROUND
4The applicant alleges that the respondent terminated his employment on May 28, 2005 because of his alcohol and drug addiction. Subsequently, the applicant filed a complaint with the Commission alleging his dismissal was discriminatory. In the current Application narrative, the applicant states that he abandoned his human rights complaint with the Commission because he “was not in a state of mind to properly prepare and pursue” the complaint.
5The applicant further indicates that he was unable to pursue the current Application any earlier because, due to his condition, he lacked the capacity to make any meaningful decisions and also he was involved in rehabilitation programs. The applicant contends that the timeline for filing his Application should run from September 9, 2009, the point in time when his health no longer interfered with his ability to file and pursue his complaint.
DECISION
6Section 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.
7Under section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to accept an 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.
8The applicant provided a copy of his Commission complaint dated July 30, 2006 against the respondent employer. In that complaint, the applicant asserted the same disability discrimination allegations arising out of the identical situation and sought the same remedy of reinstatement as claimed in the current Application.
9The Tribunal finds that this Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied that this Application is barred under section 53(8), as its subject-matter is substantially the same as the subject-matter of the human rights complaint that the applicant previously filed with the Commission.
10Given the disposition under section 53(8), it is no longer necessary to determine the issue of the delay with respect to filing the Application within one year of the last incident.
2
11In the circumstances, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of November, 2009.
“Signed By”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair
3