Tony Lagana v. Frank Zbaraschuk, Pat Roehl, Rob Castellano, and Dino Dello Sbarba, 2009 HRTO 291

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tony Lagana

Applicant

-and-

Frank Zbaraschuk, Pat Roehl, Rob Castellano, and Dino Dello Sbarba

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: March 13, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 291 Indexed as: Lagana v. Zbaraschuk

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed on December 6, 2008, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with a request by the respondents for early dismissal, and to address some administrative issues in respect of this Application.

2In this Application, the applicant alleges a reprisal by the respondents, in respect of employment, contrary to s. 8 of the Code. The applicant noted on his Application that he had filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”), and gave the Commission’s file number.

3Rather than responding to the Application, the respondents have made a Request for Early Dismissal of the Application on the ground that a complaint was filed with the Commission based on the same facts as this Application. The respondents enclosed a copy of the complaint.

4A review of the complaint, dated November 19, 2007, indicates that its subject-matter is events that allegedly occurred between April 23, 2007 and October 30, 2007. The focus of the complaint is the alleged failure by the respondents to accommodate disability during the complainant’s employment.

5This Application deals with the termination of the applicant’s employment, which the respondents confirm took place on December 10, 2007. The Application characterizes the termination as a reprisal for the purposes of s. 8 of the Code. The Application contains some reference to the subject-matter of the complaint to the Commission, but the dismissal and claim of reprisal are not part of the subject-matter of the complaint.

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.

7Ordinarily, the Tribunal would seek submissions from the parties on whether s. 53(8) of the Code was a bar to this Application. However, in this case, it is clear on the face of the materials filed that s. 53(8) of the Code does not bar this Application in respect of the claim of reprisal. The respondents’ request for early dismissal is denied.

8Neither the applicant nor the respondents have provided information about the status of the complaint to the Commission. In the interest of the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of this Application, the Tribunal requires this information.

9The Tribunal has received a letter from one of the respondents, Frank Zbaraschuk, stating that he has been authorized to represent the other respondents for purposes related to the Application. The respondents may confirm the identity of their representative when they complete the Response. They are directed to the Tribunal’s Policy on Representation before the HRTO which describes the classes of persons who may represent someone in proceedings before the Tribunal.

ORDER

10The respondents are directed to deliver their Response in respect of this Application to the applicant and to the Tribunal by April 6, 2009.

11The applicant is directed to inform the Registrar in writing of the current status of the complaint he filed with the Commission in November of 2007. If the Commission has issued any decision(s) concerning that complaint, the applicant is directed to provide the Registrar with a copy of the decision(s).

12I am not seized of this matter.