Massa v. London Men's Baseball League, 2015 HRTO 174

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joe Massa

Applicant

-and-

London Men’s Baseball League

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: February 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 174

Indexed as: Massa v. London Men’s Baseball League

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joe Massa, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed 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 age, disability and reprisal.

2In its Response (Form 2) the respondent sought the early dismissal of the Application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code. The applicant has responded to the respondent’s request for early dismissal.

3The Application is dismissed.

4Section 34(11) of the Code which provides as follows:

A person who believes that one of his or her rights under Part I has been infringed may not make an application under subsection (1) with respect to that right if,

(a) a civil proceeding has been commenced in a court in which the person is seeking an order under section 46.1 with respect to the alleged infringement and the proceeding has not been finally determined or withdrawn; or

(b) a court has finally determined the issue of whether the right has been infringed or the matter has been settled.

5The allegations the applicant has made in this and several related Applications, are difficult to describe but seem to flow from a dispute with other members of the respondent league in August and September 2012 culminating in his expulsion from the league in April 2013. Included with several of these Applications are literally reams of documents and submissions much of which is difficult to understand. However there appears to be no dispute that the claims in this Application are included in several claims filed in the Small Claims Court.

6I note in this regard that the several claims filed by the applicant were consolidated by order of a Deputy Judge in August 2014. As part of this Order the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the defendants including this respondent. When he failed to do so and indicated to the court that he would not do so his remaining claim was dismissed by the court on November 2014.

7The applicant’s arguments are not particularly responsive to the issue at hand. He makes a number of allegations about the small claims court process and the conduct of the judicial officers who have made Orders in his claims.

8The applicant also states that the issues raised in this Application are “a small part” of the claims raised in the small claims matters. The applicant states further that he alleged in claim 14-862, one of the claims which was consolidated and then dismissed, discrimination on the basis of age and disability by this respondent in relation to his expulsion from the respondent’s league in 2012.

9In my view it is clear that the requirements of section 34(11) are met here in that a civil proceeding has been commenced where damages are sought for alleged violations of the Code and that proceeding has not been finally determined, withdrawn or settled. In fact it has been dismissed because the applicant refused to honour a cost order of the Small Claims Court. If there were a material difference between the issues raised in the two proceedings it is up to the applicant to point out those differences. The applicant has not done and in fact acknowledges that while there were a host of other issues raised in the civil claims, the issues raised in this Application were also raised in those cases. For these reasons the Application is dismissed.