Santonato v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, 2008 HRTO 399

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Mark Santonato Applicant

-and-

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 12R24 Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Mark Santonato Applicant

-and-

Brewer’s Retail Inc., Mark Lynch, and Mike Nichol Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 15, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 399 Indexed as: Santonato v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union

1These are two Applications filed December 3, 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 respondent in T-0539-08 filed a Response on December 8, 2008. The respondents in T-0540-08 have not yet filed their Responses which are due 35 days after they received the Application.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to issue case management directions with respect to both Applications which are briefly summarized as follows:

T-0539-08: The applicant alleges that the respondent, his bargaining agent, discriminated against him in employment, when it declined to proceed with his grievance against his termination.

T-0540-08: The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against in employment by the respondents on the basis of disability. The applicant alleges that the respondents terminated his employment while he was on a medical leave from work.

PARTIES TO APPLICATION T-0539-08

3In T-0539-08 the named respondents in the underlying complaint filed with Ontario Human Rights Commission were the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 12R24 and Rob Edwards. In his Application to the Tribunal the applicant named Cynthia D. Watson and not Rob Edwards.

4Section 53(3) applications must be based on the “subject-matter of the complaint” originally filed at the Commission. The parties named in the original complaint are the parties to the Application. Thus, Cynthia D. Watson is not a party to the Application at this time. Rule 5.15 provides that requests to add parties will only be considered in exceptional circumstances which do not exist at this stage of the proceedings.

PROCEEDING WITH APPLICATIONS TOGETHER

5The 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 these applications.

6These Applications arise out of similar circumstances, involve 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.

7In order to assist in scheduling the mediation expeditiously, all parties are requested to provide, within 10 days from the date of this decision, a list of available dates for mediation in March 2009.

8I am not seized of these matters.