Sadaghyani v. Kingston General Hospital, 2014 HRTO 1440

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abbas Sadaghyani

Applicant

-and-

Kingston General Hospital and

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 444

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: September 26, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1440

Indexed as: Sadaghyani v. Kingston General Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Abbas Sadaghyani, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, place of origin and gender identity contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Application is about events in 2005 when the applicant was employed by the respondent hospital. On two occasions the applicant has brought an Application regarding these events. In both Decision 2008 HRTO 431 and Decision 2012 HRTO 1039, the Tribunal dismissed the Applications because each was barred under s.53(8) of the Code, which reads:

No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.

3Both Decisions set out the factual background which led to the Tribunal to conclude that each Application was barred. I do not need to reproduce them for a third time. Decision 2012 HRTO 1039 also dismissed the Application on the ground of delay in filing the Application.

4The present Application is based on the same events that were the subject of the two previous Applications. The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on August 28, 2014, and directed him to explain why s.53(8) does not apply to bar the present Application.

5The applicant filed submissions, but they do not address this issue. The submissions focus on why the applicant thinks it is unfair that the Tribunal will not hear his Application and they explain the difficulties he has had in obtaining employment which, according to him, flow from the events in 2005.

6On reviewing the Application I am satisfied that subject-matter is substantially the same as the subject-matter of the complaint that the applicant filed with the Commission under the old Part IV of the Code. That complaint was withdrawn by the applicant but, as is explained in the two previous Decisions, s.53(8) operates to bar an application to the Tribunal if the complaint before the Commission was withdrawn.

7As the Application is barred by s.53(8), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with it.

order

8The Application is dismissed.