Mazdak Bandeh Moghadami v. Various Respondents, 2014 HRTO 1783

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mazdak Bandeh Moghadami

Applicant

-and-

Various Respondents

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1783

Indexed as: Moghadami v. Various Respondents

1An Application (Form 1) alleging discrimination under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”), was received by the Tribunal on August 8, 2014. The Application is substantially incomplete and for the following reasons it cannot be processed by the Tribunal and must be closed.

2In it the applicant identifies five organizational respondents. In response to the Form 1, Question 8: What happened, the applicant responds as follows:

A full Factum and an Application Record will be submitted at a later date. As well, a complete list of individuals associated to the above stated organizations will also be added and included within my future submissions (Factum and Application Record). The reason that they will be included in the future submissions (Factum and Application Record) is that so I do not miss the deadlines and the limitation period of this Application.

3In Response to “Question 9: How the Events You Described Affected You”, a similar response is recorded.

4In response to virtually every query in the Form 1 a similar response is provided. As a result the Application is entirely devoid of particulars of the basis for the applicant’s belief that he has experienced discrimination.

5In response to Question 15, the applicant indicates that the facts of the Application were part of another proceeding before the Divisional Court which had concluded.

6On August 25, 2014, the applicant provided a listing of some 150 individual and organizational respondents.

7On September 5, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised him that the Application was incomplete and could not be processed. The applicant was directed to respond to the incomplete Application question(s) on the enclosed form and return it to the Tribunal on or before September 25, 2014.

8On September 26, 2014, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal with extensive submissions asking for a six-month extension to complete the Application. The applicant requested this extraordinary extension citing a Code-related accommodation need. The applicant also indicated that he was seeking leave to appeal the Decision of the Divisional Court to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

9On November 18, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again. The material portion of that letter are reproduced here:

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) is in receipt of your letter dated September 26, 2014, seeking an extension until March 25, 2015 to file your complete Application in HRTO File No. 2014-18443-I.

While the HRTO is committed to providing parties with accommodation, a request for six months cannot be granted. The HRTO’s practice is to grant short extensions to parties in order for them to meet their filing obligations and generally speaking, extensions of two weeks are typically what is granted. Extension of longer than two weeks can be granted in some circumstances, but they are considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the reasons supporting the request. In your particular circumstances, you have submitted medical documentation to support your request, however, the medical documentation does not support a lengthy extension of time to complete the Application. In the circumstances the Tribunal will grant you a further two weeks complete your Application until December 2, 2014.

10On December 4, 2014, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal renewing his request for an extension of time to complete the Application.

11Assuming without deciding that I have jurisdiction to consider a request such as this one based on an Application that is entirely devoid of particulars, I find that there is no basis to grant the applicant’s request.

12The Code and the Tribunal’s Rules seek to ensure the fair, just, and expeditious adjudication of an application that is filed with it. Moreover the Code requires in section 34 that an application be filed within a year of the last incident of alleged discrimination or, if there is a series of incidents alleged, within a year of the last in an alleged series.

13The Tribunal is committed to ensuring an accessible process, both for self-represented parties and persons with disabilities. As part of this process incomplete application forms are not automatically rejected by the Tribunal, and instead a short period of time is sometimes provided for applicants to provide missing information to ensure their applications are complete. This is not a review of substantive content – merely a review to ensure there is content. The process promotes the important principle of access to justice while at the same time helps ensure that when the applicant’s initiating documents are delivered to the respondents, those respondents understand the allegations being made against them. However, in this case the applicant has in effected filed a blank Form 1 and a list of alleged respondents. There is no substantive content to the Application. It is, in a word, incomplete.

14I would also note that s. 34(2) of Code contemplates the circumstances in which an Application may be filed late. The provision requires that any delay in filing must be in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay. Accordingly, the applicant is not prevented from filing a complete Application at a later time, and attempting to establish at that time that any delay was in good faith – whether on the basis of disability or otherwise.

15In this case the applicant has chosen to instead file a place holder Form 1 while he pursues other legal remedies, claiming that he is unable to pursue all of this litigation at the same time because of an alleged disability. In this regard, again assuming without deciding that I have authority to consider the applicant’s request, I have reviewed the applicant’s materials in support of his extraordinary request and it is insufficient to establish that he is unable to complete the Application in a timely fashion. The information provided includes some limited medical information, much of which is dated and says nothing about the applicant’s present state of health. A more recent medical note indicates only that he was seen and assessed on October 30, 2014, by a psychiatrist. None of the material filed by the applicant suggests that he is unable to complete the Application due to a disability. In light of this conclusion, I would not find that the neutral requirement with respect to filing a complete application in a timely manner has an adverse impact on the applicant on the basis of disability, and accordingly it is unnecessary to consider what if any accommodation might be required or whether the accommodation sought (i.e. a six-month extension) would amount to undue hardship.

16The application is accordingly closed as incomplete.