Mertick v. Office of the Registrar General, 2010 HRTO 1772

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terry Mertick

Applicant

-and-

Office of the Registrar General, Registrar General of Ontario, and Province of Ontario

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1772

Indexed as: Mertick v. Office of the Registrar General

1In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1501, dated July 9, 2010, the Tribunal granted the applicant an extension of time to file submissions in response to the respondents’ Request for Early Dismissal. The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file written submissions with respect to the respondents’ Request no later than 14 days from the date of that Interim Decision.

2The applicant’s written submissions in response to the respondents’ Request were due on or before July 23, 2010. The applicant did not file written submissions by that date. Instead, on July 28, 2010, the applicant filed an additional request for an extension of time reiterating the basis for the first request.

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

3The applicant’s request for an extension of time is denied. Although this is only the applicant’s second request for additional time with respect to the respondents’ Request to dismiss, there have been a several previous extension requests by the applicant since the Application was filed on November 3, 2009. These various extension requests have delayed and prolonged the Tribunal’s process.

4The Tribunal is committed to fair, just and expeditious proceedings. Notwithstanding timelines imposed by the Tribunal, the applicant continues to file materials after the elapse of deadlines. The applicant’s lack of regard of the Tribunal’s timelines raises concerns with respect to good faith and procedural fairness. The earlier Interim Decision expressly noted that if the applicant did not file submissions in accordance with the Tribunal’s order, the Tribunal will proceed to determine the issues based on the documents before it.

BACKGROUND

5The Application alleges discrimination in the area of goods, services, and facilities because of creed. The applicant alleges that the respondents discriminatorily removed the religious denomination of his church and his status as clergy and that the respondents have continued to refuse to re-register him and his church.

6The Application notes that “this has been an on-going issue”. Specifically, the Application explains that the applicant’s church was notified of the respondents’ decision in 2001 and “every attempt to reapply has been futile”.

REQUEST TO DISMISS

7The respondents Request Early Dismissal on two bases: (i) the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as a previously filed complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) and (ii) the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

8Section 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.

9Under section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to accept an application in circumstances where the allegations contained in the application constituted the subject-matter or substantially the same subject-matter of a complaint previously filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code.

10The respondents provided a copy of the applicant’s previous human rights complaint (dated May 12, 2006) alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and record of offences against the Office of the Registrar General, a respondent in this Application. The respondents also provided copies of the Commission’s investigation report and Commission decision deciding not to deal with the complaint.

11A careful review of the materials provided by the respondents and the current Application indicates that the allegation of creed discrimination is at the heart of both claims. In the previous human rights complaint, the applicant asserted the same discrimination allegations arising out of the same type of situation and sought same remedy as claimed in the current Application.

12The Tribunal finds that this Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is satisfied that this Application is barred under section 53(8), as its subject-matter is substantially the same as the subject-matter of the human rights complaint that the applicant previously filed with the Commission.

13Given the disposition under section 53(8), it is no longer necessary to determine the issue of the delay with respect to filing the Application within one year of the last incident.

14Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.