Norvi v. H & R Block Canada Inc., 2015 HRTO 1690

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Surjit Norvi Applicant

-and-

H & R Block Canada Inc. Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw Date: December 16, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1690 Indexed as: Norvi v. H & R Block Canada Inc.

Appearances

H & R Block Canada Inc., Respondent Carmen Francis, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The Tribunal advised by a July 20, 2015 Case Assessment Direction that a summary hearing would be held in this matter to determine if the Application had no reasonable prospect of success.

3On December 14, 2015, the day before the summary hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he wished to withdraw his Application "for the time being". The applicant on the same day subsequently filed with the Tribunal a Form 9 Request to Withdraw an Application.

4The respondent wrote to the Tribunal and advised it was concerned about the time and expense the respondent had expended in preparing for the summary hearing, and submitted that it was not an appropriate use of the Tribunal's resources if the respondent found itself in the same position a few months down the road, particularly in light of the fact that the applicant had had an extended period of time to get ready for the summary hearing. The respondent requested that the applicant's request to withdraw his Application be accepted by the Tribunal only if the applicant was prohibited from seeking to recommence his Application at a later date.

5In light of the respondent's correspondence, the Tribunal advised the parties to attend on the teleconference summary hearing to address this matter.

6The applicant then emailed the Tribunal and advised that he agreed with the respondent's proposal that he withdraw his Application on a "with prejudice" and permanent basis.

7In response, the Tribunal again advised the applicant to attend the teleconference summary hearing to make his submissions. However, the applicant failed to do so. The respondent attended.

Decision

8The Tribunal in this case grants the applicant's request to withdraw his Application, but on a with prejudice basis.

9Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that, "where a Response to an Application has been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine".

10In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1751, the Tribunal allowed the applicant to withdraw without conditions, commenting as follows (at para. 4):

The Tribunal appreciates the respondents' concerns about the time and resources they have devoted to responding to this Application. Nonetheless, I see little to be gained by an inquiry at this stage into whether the circumstances of this Application and the possible motivation for the applicant's decision to seek to withdraw the Application should lead to the sort of order sought by the respondents. If the applicant seeks to re-file the same allegations in another application, the respondents may raise their objection at that time and may request that the Tribunal refuse to consider a new application.

11In my view, the D.R. decision is distinguishable because in this case the applicant agreed to the Application being withdrawn on a "with prejudice" basis.

Order

12The applicant's request to withdraw the Application is granted on a "with prejudice" to the applicant's ability to revive the Application or file a new one in respect of the same issues.