Genna Mandich v. Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd., 2013 HRTO 598

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Genna Mandich Applicant

-and-

Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd., Naeem Muhammed and Angelica Tesseris Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 16, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 598 Indexed as: Mandich v. Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Genna Mandich, Applicant Self-represented

Naeem Muhammed, Respondent Jenny Stephenson, Counsel

Clinicare Health Services Wonderland Ltd., Respondent Christopher A. Sinal, Counsel

Angela Tesseris, Respondent Self-represented

1This Application was filed on November 12, 2010, alleging sexual solicitation or advance in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code").

2The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1407 pending the conclusion of a disciplinary process of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (the "College").

3On March 14, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("Request") asking that the Tribunal reactivate the Application because the College issued decision on February 14, 2013. The applicant provided a copy of that decision.

4Each of the respondents filed a separate response opposing the applicant's Request to reactivate the Application as premature. The respondents argue that the Application should not be reactivated because the College process remains underway. The respondents explain that while the first phase of the College process has completed with a decision regarding the "findings", the second phase with respect to "penalty" is outstanding. The respondents indicate that this second phase is currently scheduled for May 8 and 9, 2013. In addition, the appeals period applicable to the existing discipline decision and future penalty decision have not expired.

5The Interim Decision deferring this Application expressly noted that the matter was deferred pending the completion of the College process in order to avoid duplicitous proceedings.

6I find the basis for reactivation as set out in the Interim Decision has not been satisfied. As such, based on the parties' materials, I decline to reactive this Application. A request to proceed with a deferred application can only be granted when the other process, upon which the application was deferred, has been completed.

7The applicant has not established that the College process is concluded. In fact, the respondents' submissions indicate that additional hearing days are pending for the second phase of the College process. I agree with the respondents' submissions that the request to reactivate is premature because the College process has yet to be completed.

8Accordingly, the applicant's request to reactivate this Application is denied.

9I am not seized.