Razia Zaman v. CLV Group Inc., 2013 HRTO 842

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Razia Zaman

Applicant

-and-

CLV Group Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 16, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 842

Indexed as: Zaman v. CLV Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Razia Zaman, Applicant

Self-represented

CLV Group Inc., Respondent

Paul Lalonde, Counsel

1This Decision addresses the applicant’s request to withdraw her Application.

2By Application filed June 19, 2012, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R. S. O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3The Application was scheduled to be heard June 10-11, 2013.

4On May 7, 2013, the applicant sought to withdraw her Application because she had to travel to England to deal with a family emergency and would not be able to return to Canada in the near future.

5By e-mail dated May 7, 2013, the respondent noted that the last incident raised in the Application was alleged to have occurred on May 15, 2012. As a result, the one year time period set out in s. 34(1) of the Code would expire on May 16, 2013 with respect to the incidents raised in the Application. For this reason, the respondent requested that the Tribunal only grant the applicant’s request to withdraw on the condition that the withdrawal be “with prejudice” to her filing a new application based on the allegations set out in her present Application.

6In 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.

7I 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 respondent may raise their objection to the timeliness of the allegations at that time.

8For these reasons, the applicant’s request to withdraw her Application is granted without terms.