HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Franca Luciani
Applicant
-and-
Yarl Co-Operative Homes Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Luciani v. Yarl Co-Operative Homes Inc.
APPEARANCES
Franca Luciani, Applicant
Ayoob Khan, Representative
Yarl Co-Operative Homes Inc., Respondent
Christine Davies, Counsel
1The hearing of this matter was scheduled for April 27-28, 2016.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability, race and ethnic origin and reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
3The parties attended the hearing on April 27, 2016. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the applicant advised that she wished to withdraw her Application due to health reasons. She stated that she is dealing with significant health issues and simply wishes to have peace in her dealings with the respondent.
4The respondent requested that the Tribunal grant the withdrawal on a “with prejudice” basis. It submitted that it has been forced to expend significant resources preparing for the hearing. It also noted that this is not the first application filed by the applicant. The applicant has filed at least one other application to this Tribunal against the respondent.
Finding
5Rule 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Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, “where a Response to an Application has been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine.”
6The Tribunal has a duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly and expeditiously. See section 40 of the Code and Rule A 3.1 of the Social Justice Tribunals of Ontario Common Rules. This duty is not only in relation to applicants, but also in relation to respondents, who may expend significant resources responding to human rights Applications, and to the public, whose tax dollars fund the Tribunal.
7What may not be readily apparent to parties is that every withdrawal made at a hearing or very late in the process causes a loss of hearing days which not only affects the Tribunal but also affects other parties who must wait longer to have applications heard by the Tribunal. This may lead to a gradual decline in the effectiveness of human rights adjudication and enforcement in the province over time.
8I do not question the sincerity of the applicant’s description of her health condition. I empathize with her and do not doubt that she is dealing with significant health issues and life circumstances. However, I must take into account that the respondent has had to expend significant resources preparing for the hearing in this case. The respondent is unable to recover any costs resulting from this process because this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award costs. See Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405. The Tribunal has also expended significant resources processing the Application, addressing preliminary issues in the case, and scheduling the hearing.
9In these circumstances, I agree with the respondent that the withdrawal should be granted “with prejudice” to the applicant’s ability to file any future application arising out of the same incidents or allegations raised in the Application.
ORDER
10For the foregoing reasons, I grant the applicant permission to withdraw her Application on the following terms:
a. That the applicant is barred from filing any future application against the respondent relating to the incidents or allegations raised in this Application.
b. If the applicant does file a future application relating to the incidents or allegations raised in this Application, the respondent may seek the summary dismissal of such future application as an abuse of process.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of April, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair