Roos v. Firestone Textiles, 2009 HRTO 698

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Henry Roos

Applicant

-and-

Firestone Textiles Ltd.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: May 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 698

Indexed As: Roos v. Firestone Textiles

1On November 17, 2008, the applicant filed an Application under Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application alleged that the respondent, his former employer, had discriminated against him on the ground of disability, contrary to sections 5 and 9 of the Code. The Application deals with a series of events that occurred between 1989 and 2004.

2On March 9, 2009, I conducted a teleconference about the Application. Mr. Roos was self-represented; Lynda Ruffo, Human Resources Manager, represented Firestone Textiles Ltd. In the course of the teleconference, Mr. Roos informed me that he had complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") about the subject-matter of this Application, and that the Commission had rejected his complaint. I requested and reviewed copies of the relevant materials. Apparently, the subject-matter of this Application was the same as that of a complaint filed by Mr. Roos with the Commission on July 3, 2003. The materials showed that the Commission declined to deal with that complaint in November 2003, and upheld its refusal on reconsideration in June 2005.

3The Tribunal issued a written Case Assessment Direction which provided the text of s. 53(8) of the Code and indicated that in the circumstances the Tribunal might be barred from dealing with the Application. A teleconference was held on May 15, 2009 to give the parties the opportunity to make oral submissions on the applicability of s. 53(8).

4Section 53(8) of the Code provides as follows:

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.

5The applicant did not deny that the subject matter of this Application is the same facts that were dealt with in his 2003 complaint to the Commission.

Having heard from the parties, I must conclude that s. 58(3) applies to the circumstances of this Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.