HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Carosi
Applicant
-and-
Diana Dimmer and Neil Zaph
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Claudio Carosi
Applicant
-and-
Diana Dimmer and Neil Zaph
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Carosi v. Dimmer
1These are two Applications, T-0820-08 and T-0821-08, filed December 29, 2008, under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The underlying human rights complaints (the "complaints") are briefly summarized as follows.
2The applicants, husband and wife, allege discrimination on the grounds of age, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race in the areas of goods and services, accommodation, contracts, and employment. The applicants allege that the discrimination arose when they attempted to recoup payment due for work that they completed for the City of Toronto.
3The respondents argued in their Response (Form B) to both Applications that all or part of the Applications are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the Ontario Human Rights Commission already dismissed the complaints which underlie the present Applications and the complainants chose not to make a request for reconsideration. In a prior decision, 2009 HRTO 702, both Applications were dismissed as against the City of Toronto and two individuals. The respondents also took the position at the time that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") had chosen not to "process" the complaints as they related to two other respondents, Dimmer and Zaph. The Tribunal on July 16, 2009 requested further submissions from the parties on this latter issue including any documents that would be relied upon.
4The respondents on September 2, 2009, delivered and filed the cover pages of both human rights complaints underlying these Applications as provided by the Commission. On both complaints it is noted amongst other things that "individual respondents Diana Dimmer and Neil Zaph were removed".
5The applicants were afforded a further opportunity to respond to this issue in a Case Assessment Direction dated October 27, 2009. In response to a request received on November 6, 2009 from the applicants' representative, the Tribunal's letter of July 16, 2009 first requesting submissions from the parties was provided as was a further opportunity to make submissions on the status of the complaints as they relate to Zaph and Dimmer. These submissions were due on or about November 30, 2009. No further submissions were received from the applicants.
6The applicants stated in their correspondence of November 6, 2009 that contrary to what the cover pages of the complaints show, the Commission has advised them that it could not confirm that respondents Zaph and Dimmer were removed. In submissions received on July 13, 2009, the applicants stated that the complaints had never been dismissed as against Zaph and Dimmer.
7I find that the complaints underlying these Applications were not continued within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Code. It is plain on the face of the documents which described the subject matter of both complaints, and hence the subject matter of these Applications, that the two remaining respondents were removed at some stage whether or not the Commission is able to confirm that now. As a result the two individuals in question were no longer respondents when the Applicants abandoned their complaints and transferred them to the Tribunal.
8The Applications are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of December, 2009.
"Signed by"
David Muir
Vice-chair