Alex Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, 2016 HRTO 372

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 Date: March 23, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 372 Indexed as: Gilmor v. Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alex Gilmor, Applicant Alex Gilmor, Self-represented

Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority, Respondent David Delagran, Counsel

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").

background

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).

3In a subsequent Interim Decision, (2015 HRTO 1350), the Tribunal refused a request by the applicant to reactivate the Application after a decision of the Divisional Court issued on September 9, 2015 (Gilmor et al. v. Nottawasaga Valley and the Township of Amaranth, 2015 ONSC 5327), on the basis that the respondent had filed a motion for leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal. The Interim Decision made it clear that the Tribunal would only deal with any request to reactivate once Court of Appeal proceedings were concluded.

4The applicant recently requested reactivation again for the reason that "all motions to appeal were dismissed" in this matter, but the respondent opposed the request. Counsel for the respondent filed an endorsement of the Ontario Court of Appeal which confirms that the respondent's motion for leave to appeal was granted on February 19, 2016. This means that the applicant is wrong. The Court of Appeal proceedings are not concluded.

denial of request to reactivate

5In these circumstances where there is an ongoing appeal related to the legal proceeding that is the basis for the deferral, the Request for re-activation is denied.

6Upon the conclusion of the 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.