Nasrin Gholamipour-Barmakiz v. University Health Network, 2016 HRTO 960

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nasrin Gholamipour-Barmakiz Applicant

-and-

University Health Network Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: July 21, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 960 Indexed as: Gholamipour-Barmakiz v. University Health Network

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Nasrin Gholamipour-Barmakiz, Applicant Self-represented

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Application.

2On November 28, 2013, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1970, which made the following order and direction at paras. 10-11:

[T]he Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, and the conclusion of the proceeding before the WSIB and any related appeals to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules and Forms can be found on its website.

3Rules 14.3 and 14.4 provide that where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) with the Tribunal and deliver it to the other parties within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, and must include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

4On January 8, 2016, the applicant filed an RFOP to reactivate her deferred Application, but she did not fully comply with Rules 14.3 and 14.4. Specifically, she did not clearly explain what the status of the grievance proceeding and the workplace safety and insurance proceeding are, did not include copies of the decisions or orders in the grievance proceeding and the workplace safety and insurance proceeding (or explain why there are none), and did not properly deliver the RFOP to the respondent (she delivered it by email to the former President and Chief Executive Officer who resigned several years ago).

5On April 6, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), which notified the applicant that the Tribunal cannot process her RFOP until she fully complies with Rules 14.3 and 14.4, and directed her to re-file her RFOP in compliance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4.

6To date, the applicant has not re-filed her RFOP in compliance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4, or otherwise responded to the CAD.

7In the circumstances, the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Application is denied.