Mustari v. Coseco Insurance Company, 2016 HRTO 965

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Rosanna Mustari Applicant

-and-

Coseco Insurance Company, Mohammad Reza Nikkhou and Joan Melanie Tucker Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 22, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 965 Indexed as: Mustari v. Coseco Insurance Company

Written Submissions

Rosanna Mustari, Applicant Self-represented

Mohammad Reza Nikkhou, Respondent Jennifer Katsuno, Counsel

Coseco Insurance Company and Joan Melanie Tucker, Respondents No one appearing

1The Tribunal deferred this application pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario ("FSCO"). See 2015 HRTO 696. Having deferred the Application pending the FSCO proceeding, the Tribunal did not address whether the Application should also be deferred pending proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario and the College of Psychologists of Ontario.

2On June 30, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking reactivation of the Application because the proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario and the College of Psychologists of Ontario have been concluded. The applicant did not indicate whether the FSCO proceeding had been completed.

3As noted above, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the completion of the FSCO proceeding, not the proceedings before College of Physicians and Surgeons Ontario or the College of Psychologists of Ontario. There is no indication that the FSCO proceeding is complete; therefore, there is no basis for reactivating the Application.

4I note that Dr. Nikkhou's response to the reactivation request is essentially a request for a summary hearing, as he submitted that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success as against him. Whether an Application has no reasonable prospect of success is not relevant to a reactivation request and can only be considered after a deferred application is reactivated. A Request for a Summary Hearing (Form 26) should be made separately from a Response to a Request for an Order so that the applicant's right to respond is clearly triggered.

5The request to reactivate is denied.

6I am not seized.