Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., 2014 HRTO 528

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yvonne Singh

Applicant

-and-

Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., Beverly Pihl, Marc Gervais,

Deanns (Clarke) Gervais and Kathy Dunnett

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: April 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 528

Indexed as: Singh v. Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc.

APPEARANCES

Yvonne Singh, Applicant

Self-Represented

Rainbow Circle Co-operative Inc., Beverly Pihl, Marc Gervais, Deanna (Clarke) Gervais and Kathy Dunnett, Respondents

Celia Chandler, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

Background

2In an Interim Decision dated January 21, 2013, 2013 HRTO 100, the Application was deferred by the Tribunal, pending the conclusion of a proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice brought by the Rainbow Circle Co-operative (the “Co-operative”) to terminate the applicant’s membership in the Co-op.

3The Tribunal’s Interim Decision directed the applicant’s attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, which outline how the Application could be brought back on after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

4Rule 14.4 requires that a request to proceed with a deferred Application be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding and reads as follows:

14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

5The Superior Court proceeding concluded on January 11, 2013, and the applicant’s occupancy rights in the Co-op were terminated effective August 13, 2012. The applicant appealed this decision to the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on September 18, 2013.

6On February 11, 2014, the Tribunal requested a status report from the applicant on the Superior Court proceeding.

7On February 19, 2014, the respondents sought a dismissal of the Application because the applicant had not asked to reactivate the Application within 60 days after the completion of the other proceeding.

8On March 10, 2014, the applicant advised the Tribunal that the reason she failed to make a request to reactivate the Application within 60 days after the completion of the civil proceeding was because of her current living situation, and her financial and medical situation. The applicant advised the Tribunal that she was hospitalized during the 60-day period following the judgment of the Divisional Court.

9On March 20, 2014, the Tribunal requested medical information from the applicant that showed she was unable to seek reactivation of the Application during the period September 2013, the date of the Divisional Court endorsement, to March 2014, when she contacted the Tribunal.

10On March 31, 2014 the applicant provided a doctor’s note dated March 28, 2014 which stated the applicant was treated for a medical condition during the period September 2013 to March 2014 that prevented her from working. The doctor’s note stated further that the applicant was hospitalized from October 28 to November 5, 2013.

Decision

11Under Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a request to reactivate an Application must be filed within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding to which the Tribunal deferred.

12That time limit is found in the Tribunal’s Rules and is not a statutory time limit. The Tribunal has the authority to lengthen or shorten time limits in the Rules, or waive or vary their strict application in order to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it: Rule 1.7; Oliver v. South Simcoe Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 863.

13The Social Justice Tribunals Ontario (“SJTO”) Common Rules, found in Part 1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, form part of the Rules of the Human Rights Tribunal. SJTO Common Rule A4.2 provides that the Tribunal may vary or waive the application of any rule or procedure.

14In exercising its authority, SJTO Common Rule A3.1 (formerly Rule 1.1) is also relevant in that it governs the interpretation of the Rules. It reads as follows:

A3.1 The rules and procedures of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposively interpreted and applied to:

(a) promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes,

(b) allow parties to participate effectively in the process, whether or not they have a representative,

(c) ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

15In this case, there is no question that the applicant failed to file a request to reactivate the Application within the time limit specified in Rule 14.4. Accordingly, the issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal ought to exercise its discretion under the Rules to extend the applicable time limit or to waive the strict application of the Rule, so as to allow the applicant to request reactivation of the Application in March 2014.

16In deciding whether it would be fair, just and expeditious to extend the time limit in this case, I must consider both the time limit in Rule 14.4 in the context of the overall scheme of the Code and Rules, as well as the reasons for the applicant’s request to extend it. The 60-day limit represents an attempt by the Tribunal to incorporate the values of fairness, justice and expeditiousness into this step of the proceedings and to balance those factors by acknowledging that parties will need a reasonable, but finite, amount of time to make a decision about reactivation. A request to extend the timeline must, therefore, be supported by some explanation. See Hudson v. Kingston (City), 2013 HRTO 2006.

17In my view, the applicant has provided some explanation for her delay. She was obtaining medical treatment from September 2013 to March 2014. She was hospitalized during the 60-day period following the Divisional Court decision on September 18, 2013, from October 28 to November 5, 2013. It was not until the Tribunal’s request for a status report on February 11, 2014 that the respondents requested a dismissal of the Application on February 19, 2014 for the applicant’s failure to request reactivation within the 60-day time period. In these circumstances, I exercise my discretion to waive strict compliance with the 60-day time period and reactivate the Application.

order

18The Application is reactivated.

19The respondents are directed to advise the Tribunal whether they are willing to proceed to mediation by April 25, 2014.