Ubah Aganeh v. Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office, 2017 HRTO 1437

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ubah Aganeh

Applicant

-and-

Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: October 31, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1437

Indexed as: Aganeh v. Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office

APPEARANCES

Ubaqh Aganeh, Applicant

John Bartolomeo, Counsel

Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office, Respondent

Clifford Hart, Counsel

1By Application filed September 30, 2016, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In the Application, the applicant made allegations of harassment based on race and colour, as well as allegations that the respondent failed to accommodate her religious practices and pregnancy. Finally, she alleged that the respondent terminated her employment, at least in part, for discriminatory reasons.

2The Tribunal scheduled a mediation in the case, which was unsuccessful. Following the unsuccessful mediation, the parties proceeded to make the disclosure required under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal scheduled two initial hearing dates for the case to take place on October 30-31, 2017. The parties both agreed to take part in a mediation-adjudication at the outset of the hearing. At approximately 2:30 PM, the applicant’s counsel advised the Tribunal and the respondent that the applicant wished to withdraw her Application.

Finding

3Rule 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the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that “where a Response to an Application has been filed, an Application may be withdrawn only with the permission of the Tribunal and upon such terms as the Tribunal may determine”.

4Accordingly, I requested submissions from the parties regarding whether I should grant the applicant’s request to withdraw the Application and what, if any, terms I should impose.

5The applicant’s counsel conceded that it may be appropropriate for the Tribunal to grant the withdrawal on a with prejudice basis. The respondent’s counsel did not dispute the Tribunal’s power to grant the applicant permission to withdraw the Application but asked that the Tribunal make clear all the steps taken by the parties before the applicant made her withdrawal request.

6At the hearing, I granted the applicant permission to withdraw her Application on a “with prejudice” basis with full reasons to follow.

7In filing this Application, the applicant began a legal proceeding that engaged significant public and private resources. In this case, the applicant did not make her request to withdraw until the Tribunal and the respondent had to expend significant time and resources on this case. She did not make her withdrawal request until after the pre-hearing disclosure process was complete and then only during the mediation-adjudication on the first hearing day. In my view, a withdrawal at this stage would be the type of conduct that would attract cost sanctions in forums where costs are awarded. Therefore, I find it appropriate to make the withdrawal subject to the terms set out below. See Loro v. Complex Services Inc., 2016 HRTO 412, and Pannu v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2014 HRTO 1734.

ORDER

8The applicant’s request to withdraw the Application is granted with prejudice to her ability to file a new one at this Tribunal in respect of the same or related facts relating to her employment with the respondent or the cessation thereof.