Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Decision Information

Decision Content

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

NADIA CAZA

Complainant

- and -

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Commission

- and -

TÉLÉ-MÉTROPOLE INC.

- and -

MANON MALO

Respondents

DECISION ON WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINTS

MEMBER: Roger Doyon

2004 CHRT 03

2004/01/21

[TRANSLATION]

I. INTRODUCTION

II. CONCLUSION

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] Whereas counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission informed the Tribunal, during the January 15, 2004 hearing, about the decision of the Complainant, Nadia Caza, to withdraw the complaints she had filed with the Commission dated November 7, 1996, in accordance with sections 7 and 14 of the Act, against Télé-Métropole Inc. and dated January 7, 1999, in accordance with section 14 of the Act, against Manon Malo.

[2] Whereas the Complainant, Nadia Caza, confirmed to the Tribunal that she was withdrawing the complaints of discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin that she had filed with the Commission against the Respondents, Télé-Métropole Inc. and Manon Malo.

II. CONCLUSION

[3] Therefore, the Tribunal

[4] takes note of Nadia Caza's decision to withdraw the complaints of discrimination on the basis of national or ethnic origin that she filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against Télé-Métropole Inc. and Manon Malo;

[5] is discontinuing the hearing and permanently closing files T633/2101 and T634/2201.

Roger Doyon

OTTAWA, Ontario

January 21, 2004

PARTIES OF RECORD

TRIBUNAL FILE: T633/2101, T634/2201
STYLE OF CAUSE: Nadia Caza v. Télé-Métropole Inc. and Manon Malo
DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING:

Montréal, Quebec

January 15 and 16, 2002;

January 22 to 24, 2002;

March 12 and 13, 2002;

January 13 to 15, 2004.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: January 21, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Nadia Caza On her own behalf
Giacomo Vigna/Monette Maillet
Daniel Chénard/Philippe Dufresne
For the Canadian Human Rights Commission
Nicola Di Iorio For the Respondents
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.