HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Johnathan Stavrou
Applicant
-and-
University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Bruce Best
Indexed as: Stavrou v. University of Ontario Institute of Technology
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Johnathan Stavrou, Applicant
Self-represented
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Respondent
Cherrine Chow, Counsel
Durham College, Respondent
Mari Maimets, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application was filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on February 11, 2016.
2On June 21, 2016, the applicant delivered and filed a Request to Withdraw the Application without prejudice to his right to file another application in the future based on the same incidents, subject to the limitation period under s.34 of the Code.
3Rules 10.3 and 10.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides as follows:
RULE 10 WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPLICATION
10.3 Where a Respondent or other person or organization receiving notice under Rule 10.1 wishes to respond to a Request to Withdraw, the response must be in Form 11, Response to Request, and must be filed no later than two days after the Request to Withdraw was delivered.
10.5 Where a Response to the Application has already been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine.
4The respondent University of Ontario Institute of Technology (“the University”) does not oppose the Request to Withdraw. It has also not yet filed its Response to the Application, as it was given an extension of time to do so, and as such the Tribunal’s permission is not required for the Application to be withdrawn against it.
5The respondent Durham College (“the College”), however, did file a Response to the Application on April 1, 2016, and as such under Rule 10.5 the Application can only be withdrawn against it with the permission of the Tribunal. It also filed a Response objecting to the Request to Withdraw, on June 24, 2016. As this was one day late under Rule 10.3, the College requested that the Tribunal extend the time under Rule 1.7(a) on the basis that there was no prejudice to granting the extension. The applicant objected to the Tribunal considering the College’s Response as it was not filed within the two days contemplated by the Rules.
6I am prepared to consider the College’s response to the Request to Withdraw, despite it being filed one day late. As noted by the College, there has been large number of documents and requests filed in this Application. The applicant had in fact filed, on an urgent basis, a lengthy request to add additional respondents only 5 days before filing his Request to Withdraw. Given the volume of materials filed, and given that the respondents were already having to address another request from the applicant when the Request to Withdraw was filed, in my view it would not be fair to refuse to consider the College’s submissions even though they were not filed strictly in accordance with Rule 10.3.
7The College requests that the Application be dismissed against it, or that the request to withdraw be refused. The College submits that it has been put to significant expense to respond to the allegations, and that permitting the applicant to withdraw the Application would “open the door to an abuse of process”. It argues that given the fact that the applicant has filed a number of requests in the Application, and has been making escalating allegations against more parties, that there is a real risk of an abuse of process if the applicant is not limited in his ability to re-file with the Tribunal in the future.
8Similar arguments were considered in D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1751, where the Tribunal noted at paras 3-4:
The respondents submit that they have been put to great trouble and expense in preparing a response to the Application, including their preparation for mediation. They express the concern that the request to withdraw may be motivated in part by a desire to keep the disputes “alive” for a future possible proceeding. They submit that the applicant should not be able to withdraw unilaterally and remain free to renew the allegations at some indefinite future date.
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.
9As noted in Lewis v. Ontario Condominium Corporation No. 14, 2016 HRTO 196 at para. 8, the Tribunal has consistently followed the above where a request to withdraw is made prior to a hearing. I agree with this approach, and similarly see no basis to impose conditions on the withdrawal in the circumstances of this case.
Order
10The applicant’s request to withdraw the Application is granted, without terms.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of July, 2016.
“signed by”
Bruce Best
Vice-chair