HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Wozenilek

Applicant

-and-

Duncan-McPhee Inc.

Respondent

interim decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: May 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 986

Indexed as: Wozenilek v. Duncan-McPhee Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Matthew Wozenilek, Applicant ) Self-represented

Duncan-McPhee Inc., Respondent ) Carol VandenHoek, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on January 31, 2012, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities because of disability.

2The respondent filed a Response on March 18, 2012, wherein it requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on a preliminary basis because the Application constitutes the same or substantially the same subject-matter of a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”). The respondent appears to allege that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because the applicant has filed multiple applications and pursued similar allegations against other Guelph business.

3The respondent’s request for early dismissal is denied. The circumstances of this Application do not come within the section 53(8) of the Code.

4Pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to accept a new 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 Code. See for example, Visconti v. Great-West Life Assurance Company, 2008 HRTO 270; Bajouco v. Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2009 HRTO 1418 and N.P. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2010 HRTO 2422.

5While the applicant may have launched and be pursuing other applications alleging similar allegations of inaccessible premises in the city of Guelph, it does not appear that the applicant had a previous Commission complaint as against this respondent or any related entity regarding. As such, section 53(8) is not applicable and the request to dismiss the Application is denied.

6I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of May, 2012.