Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Timothy Hall
Applicant
-and-
Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: June 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1171 Indexed as: Hall v. Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Timothy Hall, Applicant Self-represented
Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre, Respondent Gita Anand, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.
2In the evening prior to the scheduled mediation in this matter, the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal stating that he would not be attending the mediation and would be withdrawing his Application.
3However, Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure does not allow for an applicant to unilaterally withdraw his or her application, but rather states:
Where a Response to the Application has already been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine.
4Upon being notified of the applicant's position, the respondent filed a Form 11 objecting to the unconditional withdrawal of the Application. The Tribunal's Rules allow a respondent to file a Form 11 responding to a Request to Withdraw within two days of a Request being delivered and filed, which the respondents did.
5The Tribunal, however, sent an administrative closing letter prior to the elapse of the two days. This administrative closing letter is sent only after the two days have elapsed and where no respondents have filed a Response to the Request to Withdraw; in this particular case it was sent prematurely as a result of an administrative error. Given that the respondents were within their rights to file a Response I would give no effect to the Tribunal's administrative closing letter and I have accordingly considered the respondents submissions.
6The respondent took the position that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application or, in the alternative, "permit the request to withdraw only on condition that the Application not be reinstituted." The applicant advised the Tribunal in writing that he consented to the dismissal.
7In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1751, the Tribunal allowed the applicant to withdraw without conditions under similar circumstances, commenting as follows (at para 4):
The Tribunal appreciates the respondents' concerns about the time and resources they have devoted to responding to this Application. Nonetheless, I see little to be gained by an inquiry at this stage into whether the circumstances of this Application and the possible motivation for the applicant's decision to seek to withdraw the Application should lead to the sort of order sought by the respondents. If the applicant seeks to re-file the same allegations in another application, the respondents may raise their objection at that time and may request that the Tribunal refuse to consider a new application.
8In the instant case, the respondent has offered no support for its position that the Tribunal should dismiss this Application and despite the applicant's apparent consent to this course of action, the Tribunal is not prepared to accede to this request. Moreover, the respondent has offered no reasons why the Tribunal should impose conditions on the withdrawal.
9I see no reason to depart from the result in Upper Grand District School Board. If the applicant seeks to re-file the same allegations in another application, the respondents may raise their objection at that time and may request that the Tribunal refuse to consider a new application.
10For these reasons, I am not prepared to grant the relief sought in the respondent's Form 11. The applicant's request to withdraw his Application is granted without terms.
Dated at Toronto, this 14^th^ day of June, 2012.
"signed by"
__________________________________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair