HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Warren Rill

Applicant

-and-

Beth Din of the United States of America Incorporated,

Yona Reiss, Ronald Warburg, Moshe Goldfeder and Ariel Rackovsky

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: May 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 593

Indexed as: Rill v. Beth Din of the United States of America

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Warren Rill, Applicant ) on his own behalf

Beth Din of the United States of America, ) Benjamin Zarnett,

Yona Reiss, Ronald Warburg, Moshe Goldfeder, ) Counsel

and Ariel Rackovsky, Respondents )

Introduction

[1] This is an Application filed December 10, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[2] The complaint underlying the present Application was undated and did not bear a file number from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

[3] The Tribunal sought information and submissions from the parties and the Commission on the status of the underlying complaint at the Commission. This Decision is based on the parties’ written submissions.

[4] The Commission responded advising that, in its view, the complaint had not been filed with the Commission. The Commission’s records indicate that the Commission received a completed complaint form from the applicant’s representative on June 13, 2008. On July 15, 2008, the Commission wrote to the applicant advising, in part:

We have indicated to you that it is unlikely the Commission will be able to deal with your complaint, and have therefore advised you to file an application directly with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”). You have accordingly decided to do so. The file you initiated with the Ontario Human Rights Commission has been closed as requested.

[5] The Commission closed the matter on July 15, 2008 with the status “withdrawn”. No formal complaint was filed or served on the respondents.

[6] The applicant does not dispute the above factual assertions by the Commission and asserts he was merely following the instructions of Commission staff in filing the present Application.

[7] The respondents take the position that the applicant did not file a complaint with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008 and therefore may not abandon that complaint and file an Application under section 53. At the same time the respondents also appear to take the position that the applicant withdrew his complaint at the Commission and is therefore barred from filing an application under section 53 with respect to a withdrawn complaint.

[8] The relevant provisions of section 53 are set out below:

(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. (emphasis added)

[9] I find that although the applicant submitted a complaint form with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, in the circumstances as described above, the complaint was not “filed” with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1).

[10] Accordingly, the applicant may not file the present Application under section 53(3) of the Code and the Application is dismissed.

[11] Nothing in this Decision precludes the applicant from seeking to file an application under section 34 of the Code in the Tribunal’s new applications stream, using Form 1, the form applicable for Applications under s. 34 of the Code. The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2 – 3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to him.

Rill v. Beth Din of the United States of America, 2009 HRTO 593

Case Summary

Introduction

[1] This is an Application filed December 10, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[2] The complaint underlying the present Application was undated and did not bear a file number from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

[3] The Tribunal sought information and submissions from the parties and the Commission on the status of the underlying complaint at the Commission. This Decision is based on the parties’ written submissions.

[5] The Commission closed the matter on July 15, 2008 with the status “withdrawn”. No formal complaint was filed or served on the respondents.

[6] The applicant does not dispute the above factual assertions by the Commission and asserts he was merely following the instructions of Commission staff in filing the present Application.

[8] The relevant provisions of section 53 are set out below:

[9] I find that although the applicant submitted a complaint form with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, in the circumstances as described above, the complaint was not “filed” with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1).

[10] Accordingly, the applicant may not file the present Application under section 53(3) of the Code and the Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 7^th day of May, 2009.

_________________________________________

Kaye Joachim

Introduction

[1] This is an Application filed December 10, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

[2] The complaint underlying the present Application was undated and did not bear a file number from the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

[3] The Tribunal sought information and submissions from the parties and the Commission on the status of the underlying complaint at the Commission. This Decision is based on the parties’ written submissions.

[5] The Commission closed the matter on July 15, 2008 with the status “withdrawn”. No formal complaint was filed or served on the respondents.

[6] The applicant does not dispute the above factual assertions by the Commission and asserts he was merely following the instructions of Commission staff in filing the present Application.

[8] The relevant provisions of section 53 are set out below:

[9] I find that although the applicant submitted a complaint form with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, in the circumstances as described above, the complaint was not “filed” with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1).

[10] Accordingly, the applicant may not file the present Application under section 53(3) of the Code and the Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of May, 2009.

_________________________________________

Kaye Joachim

Dated at Toronto, this 7^th day of May, 2009.