Aristide Tsemo v. University of Toronto, 2009 HRTO 1917

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aristide Tsemo

Applicant

-and-

University of Toronto

Respondent

CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE Decision

Adjudicator: Caroline Rowan

Date: November 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1917

Indexed as: Tsemo v. University of Toronto

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 53(5) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”) on February 24, 2009. The respondent, University of Toronto, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the matter has been settled (“Request for Dismissal”). A Case Resolution Conference (“CRC”) was held on November 6, 2009 to address the Request for Dismissal.

THE REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

2After entertaining the parties’ submissions with respect to the Request for Dismissal, I delivered the following oral ruling upholding the Request, in part, only:

1. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I have determined not to permit Mr. Tsemo to raise in this proceeding any of the events referred to in his Application which occurred on or before May 10, 2005. I find it appropriate to do so on the basis that those matters were settled in the earlier human rights proceeding involving these same parties. The fact that the Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties in that earlier proceeding contain a provision under which Mr. Tsemo notes that he does not retract the allegations made in his earlier human rights complaint does not change the fact that those allegations have been appropriately dealt with within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code. In all the circumstances, I decline to inquire into any allegations which predate the release signed by Mr. Tsemo on May 10, 2005.

2. I will however entertain the allegations raised in Mr. Tsemo’s complaint concerning the November 2005 job posting and, in this regard, I reject the suggestion that the Tribunal should decline to inquire into them because it would be an abuse of process to allow them to proceed. Those allegations relate to an entirely different job posting and job application made after the settlement between the parties was reached. The fact that the responding party may have rejected his application for the same reasons as it did his earlier application in 2002 is an issue relevant to the merits of the discrimination complaint. It does not, on its own, represent a sufficient reason to dismiss the complaint on the basis of abuse of process.

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

3After the Tribunal delivered its ruling, the parties entered into settlement discussions, which led to an agreement reached between them under which they jointly request that the Tribunal adjourn this Application sine die for a period of one year.

4Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal consents to adjourn this proceeding sine die for a period not exceeding one year from November 6, 2009. Unless within that time any party requests that the Tribunal recommence the proceeding, the Application will be finally disposed of without any further notice to the parties.

5I am not seized.