Kaloshi v. Pichakchi, 2014 HRTO 1677

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Selim Kaloshi

Applicant

-and-

Olga Pichakchi

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: November 20, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1677

Indexed as: Kaloshi v. Pichakchi

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Selim Kaloshi, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant was a building superintendent in a residential condominium until his employment was terminated by a decision of the board of directors of the condominium corporation. The respondent is a director of the corporation. The applicant alleges that the termination arose at the instance of the respondent because he refused to enter into a personal relationship with her.

3The applicant brought this Application and also filed a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice, naming the respondent as the sole defendant. The narrative portion of this Application sets out the applicant’s version of events and the allegations of discrimination. The narrative from the Application is then reproduced verbatim in the Statement of Claim. The alleged actions of the respondent are characterised as discriminatory in both sets of pleadings. The remedy sought in this Application is also sought in the civil action, although there are additional remedies claimed in the civil action.

4On September 17, 2014 the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) to the applicant in relation to the Application. The NOID directs the applicant to make submissions as to why the Application should not be dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with an Application where the applicant has started a parallel civil proceeding that seeks a court order with respect to the same alleged Code violation.

5The applicant’s submissions state that the civil action has been abandoned because he was unable to serve the respondent with the statement of claim. He asks that his Application therefore be allowed to proceed. His submissions were initially not supported by any proof that the civil action had ended. He has since provided the Tribunal with a Notice of Discontinuance of the action.

6In s.34(11) the Code states:

A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to that right if,

(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order under section 46.1 with respect to the alleged infringement and the proceeding has not been finally determined or withdrawn; or

(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been infringed or the matter has been settled.

7The discontinuing of the civil action means that the court has not finally determined whether the applicant’s Code rights were infringed in accordance with s.34(11)(b). This in turn means that the Application can proceed.

order

8The Application may proceed in the Tribunal’s process. The Registrar is requested to provide the respondent with the Application and the respondent is directed to file her Response in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.