Park v. Discount Car and Truck Rentals, 2014 HRTO 1838

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Crystal Park

Applicant

-and-

Discount Car and Truck Rentals and Jerico Joshua Rosete

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: December 30, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1838

Indexed as: Park v. Discount Car and Truck Rentals

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Crystal Park, Applicant ) Self-represented

Discount Car and Truck Rentals ) Denis D. Buchanan, Counsel and Jerico Joshua Rosete, ) Respondents )

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s request to reactivate her Application.

2On December 2, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of goods and services because of sex, sexual solicitation and reprisal.

3On March 26, 2014, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, which deferred consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a criminal proceeding.

4On July 21, 2014, the applicant served a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), on the respondents indicating that she had received notice that the criminal proceeding had concluded and that she wished to reactivate her Application.

5The respondents oppose the reactivation on the basis that the RFOP was served and filed beyond the timeframe permitted by the Rules. The respondents argue that the criminal proceeding concluded on March 31, 2014 when the charges were withdrawn and a peace bond was entered into. The respondents argue that the applicant met with the crown attorney in charge of the case in advance of the withdrawal of the criminal charges and the execution of the peace bond.

6The applicant responded on December 10, 2014 that she was not aware that the criminal proceeding had concluded until she initiated a discussion with the police officer in charge in June 2014.

7Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide that where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file an RFOP with the Tribunal and deliver it to the other parties within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, and must include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any. The applicant did not include a copy of the decision or order arising from the criminal proceeding, however, the respondents confirm that the criminal proceeding concluded on March 31, 2014.

8The Tribunal may waive the application of its Rules as it considers appropriate to facilitate an accessible process and to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the matters before it (Rules 5.2 and 1.1). As such, where an RFOP to reactivate a deferred Application is filed outside the 60-day time limit in Rule 14.4, the Tribunal may, in appropriate circumstances, waive the application of the Rule, and allow the Application to be reactivated.

9In Marc-Ali v. Graham, 2012 HRTO 502, the Tribunal set out at paras. 20, 27 and 28 the factors that it will consider in deciding whether to waive the application of the 60-day time limit in Rule 14.4. Those factors include whether the delay has been incurred in good faith and whether any substantial prejudice to the respondents will result from the extension.

10In her submissions, the applicant stated that the Tribunal should waive the application of the 60-day time limit and reactivate the Application for two reasons. First, she stated that her delay in filing the RFOP to reactivate her Application was incurred in good faith because she was not informed that the criminal proceeding had concluded until June 2014. Second, she stated that the short length of the delay means that the respondents’ ability to respond to the allegations in the Application will not be substantially prejudiced.

11In the circumstances of this case, the application of the 60-day time limit in Rule 14.4 should be waived, and the Application should be reactivated. The applicant has established that her delay in filing her reactivation request was incurred in good faith, namely, she was not informed that the criminal proceeding had concluded until June 2014 and she then filed the RFOP in July, 2014. Furthermore, the delay was short, and there is no evidence that any prejudice will result to the respondents if the time limit is extended.

12Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall file their Response(s) (Form 2) to the Application with the Tribunal.

ORDER

13The Tribunal makes the following order and direction:

1. The Application is reactivated.

2. Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents shall file their Response(s) (Form 2) to the Application with the Tribunal.

14I am not seized of this matter.