Felix v. Thomas Reuters Woodbridge Company, 2016 HRTO 1559

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hans Felix

Applicant

-and-

Thomson Reuters Woodbridge Company Limited/Carswell, Anthony Moura, Quintus Thuraisingham, Ares Staffing

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: December 5, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1559

Indexed as: Felix v. Thomas Reuters Woodbridge Company

1This Application was deferred by the Registrar in a letter to the parties dated March 17, 2016. The letter advised that the Application was deferred pending the resolution of a proceeding at the Ministry of Labour. The letter referred to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which require that a request to reactivate a deferred Application must be made within 60 days of the conclusion of the other proceeding.

2The Ministry of Labour made its decision on the applicant’s complaints under the Employment Standards Act on June 10, 2016.

3On October 12, 2016, the applicant sent correspondence to various people, including the Registrar, in which he refers to the Application and the Ministry of Labour decision; however, he did not complete a Request to re-activate this Application.

4In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 7, 2016, the Tribunal directed the applicant that if he wished to pursue this Application, he must file a Request for Order During Proceedings stating that he wishes to reactivate the Application. He must also explain the reason that the request was not filed within 60 days of the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding and provide a copy of any decision relevant to that proceeding.

5The applicant filed a Request to re-activate his Application on November 14, 2016. He attached the Ministry of Labour decision but he did not provide any details of the reasons for his delay in making that request.

6. He has not provided any reason for why he waited as long as he did to deliver and file his Request to re-activate his Application.

7The applicant has not complied with the time limit set out in the Rule 14.3. The applicant’s Request to re-activate the Application was more than 3 months past the 60-day time limit for doing so in the Tribunal’s Rules. He has provided no reason for the delay in filing the Request upon which I could exercise discretion to extend this 60 day time limit. This delay that could also result in some prejudice to the respondents from the inevitable impact of the passage of time.

8Considering all of the circumstance, it is my view that it would not be appropriate to waive or vary the application of the timeline set out in Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

9As a result, this Application is dismissed.