HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Alex Gilmor Applicant
-and-
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Alex Gilmor, Applicant
Alex Gilmor, Self-represented
Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Respondent
Sheryl Flannagan, Representative
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination and reprisal with respect to services because of ancestry, place of origin and citizenship contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In an Interim Decision, the Tribunal deferred the Application, “pending the conclusion of the appeal that has been filed with the Minister of Natural Resources and any other legal proceeding related to that appeal.” (See 2012 HRTO 561, at para. 9).
denial of request to reactivate
3On September 23, 2015, the applicant filed a Request to re-activate the Application, attaching a decision of the Divisional Court, Gilmor et al. v. Nottawasaga Valley and the Township of Amaranth, 2015 ONSC 5327, that was issued September 9, 2015. While the applicant’s request was timely, the respondent has filed a Response to the Request to re-activate, opposing re-activation because it has filed for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The respondent attached its Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal, as well as the covering letter for the Notice of Motion from counsel serving the applicant, dated September 23, 2015.
4In these circumstances where there is now an ongoing appeal related to the legal proceeding that is the basis for the deferral, the Request for re-activation is denied.
5Upon the conclusion of the Motion and possible appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal, any party may request the re-activation of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of October, 2015.
“Signed By”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair