Armstrong v. Leisureworld Caregiving Centres, 2008 HRTO 208

1These are three Applications filed on September 25, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have filed their Responses. The Applications are briefly summarized as follows:

T-0292-08: The applicant is Enid Armstrong a retired employee of the corporate respondent Leisureworld Caregiving Centres (“Leisureworld”). The respondents Aleyamma Rajan and Elaine Whiterock are employees of the corporate respondent. The respondent Stacy Mitro is an official of the applicant’s bargaining agent, Service Employees International Union Local 1 Canada (SEIU). The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in employment on the basis of age. The respondents, Rajan, Whitrock and Leisureworld have raised a preliminary issue pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code that the substance of the application has been dealt with in a grievance arbitration. The respondent Mitro raised a similar objection, although framed as an objection pursuant to s. 34(1) of the prior Code.

T-0294-08: The applicant is Shirley Francis a retired employee of Leisureworld. The respondent is the applicant’s bargaining agent, Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada (SEIU). The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in employment on the basis of age. The respondent has raised a preliminary issue, framed pursuant to section 34 of the prior Code, that the substance of the Application has been dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

T-0295-08: The applicant is Shirley Francis a retired employee of Leisureworld. The respondents Aleyamma Rajan and Elaine Whiterock are employees of the corporate respondent Leisureworld. The applicant alleges that she was discriminated against in employment on the basis of age. The respondents have raised a preliminary issue pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code that the substance of the Application has been dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

2The corporate respondent is named as Diversicare Canada Management Services Co. in T-0292-08 and T-0295-8. In its Responses the corporate respondent advise that Diversicare was purchased by Leisureworld Caregiving Centres and that Leisureworld has assumed responsibility for any liability arising out of the complaints which ground these Applications. The Tribunal has amended the style of cause accordingly.

3The Tribunal’s Rules for Applications under section 53(3) of the Code are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of applications filed under this section.

4These Applications, including the preliminary issues, involve substantially similar facts and appear to raise similar legal issues. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these Applications should proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

5In order to assist in scheduling the mediation expeditiously, all parties are requested to provide the Registrar-Transition with a list of five available dates for mediation in both December 2008 and January 2009 within 10 days from the date of this decision.

6I am not seized of these matters.