Ibrahim v. London (City), 2013 HRTO 136

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohammad Ibrahim

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the City of London

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Date: January 25, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 136
Indexed as: Ibrahim v. London (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Corporation of the City of London, Respondent
Frank A. Angeletti, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on August 8, 2012, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, colour and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, ("Code") as amended.

2The respondent filed a Response on December 17, 2012, denying the allegations of discrimination and submitting that the applicant's employment was terminated for cause. The respondent also filed with the Tribunal, copied to the applicant's counsel, a Request for Orders During Proceedings ("RFOP") asking that the Tribunal dismiss the Application and/or parts of on the Application on the following basis:

i) No prima facie case linking the allegations to Code grounds;

ii) A majority of the allegations are untimely dating back 25 years; and

iii) Certain portions of the Application are the subject of previous settlements and that the applicant has signed full and final releases.

The respondent also submits that the Application lacks sufficient details and that the applicant should be required to provide full particulars.

3On December 20, 2012, the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Response and a Notice of Request to Dismiss ("Notice") to the applicant. The Notice indicated that the respondent requests that the Application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same issues in dispute. The Notice directed the applicant to respond to the issues raised in the Notice by no later than January 7, 2013. The Notice advised the applicant that failure to respond to the Notice may be considered an abandonment of the Application and it might be dismissed for that reason.

4The applicant has failed to comply with various Tribunal directions, including requirements stated in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure ("Rules"). The Tribunal notes that in accordance with Rule 9.1 of the Tribunal's Rules an applicant who intends to prove a version of the facts different from those set out in a Response is required to include those facts in a Reply (Form 3), unless such facts are already stated in the Application. In accordance with Rule 19.6, a party responding to an RFOP must complete a Response to Request (Form 11) no later than 14 days after the RFOP was delivered. Lastly, as indicated in the Notice, the applicant was required to respond to the request to dismiss by filing submissions setting out his position on the issues and providing relevant documentation.

5The applicant has not responded to the RFOP, has failed to make submissions in response to the Notice and has not filed a Reply (Form 3). The time for filing these materials has now elapsed.

6In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.