HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Yvonne Sharras
Applicant
-and-
Rouge Valley Health System and Sheri Bredewold
Respondents
- and -
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4365
Intervenor
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Adjudicator: David A. Wright
Indexed as: Sharras v. Rouge Valley Health System
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY
Yvonne Sharras, Applicant ) Glen Morrison,
) Representative
INTRODUCTION
1The issue to be determined in this Reconsideration Decision is whether it was a violation of the Tribunal Rules or procedural fairness for the Tribunal to decide this s.53(3) Application on the basis that, assuming all the evidence that the applicant’s witnesses would give was true, there was no violation of the Code. She argues that as a result of the fact that evidence from witnesses was not heard, the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance: Rules of Procedure for s. 53(3) and 53(5) Applications (“Transitional Rules”), Rule 25.5 (c).
THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED
2The full history of this matter is set out in various Interim Decisions: 2008 HRTO 73, 2008 HRTO 105, 2008 HRTO 222, 2008 HRTO 384, 2008 HRTO 454, 2009 HRTO 537 and in the final Decision: 2009 HRTO 615.
3The procedure followed at the Case Resolution Conference was described at paras. 4-7 of the Decision as follows:
The CRC was held on May 8, 2009 and was conducted in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules, that section 53(3) applications proceed in an informal and highly expeditious manner.
The respondent was directed, in the December decision, to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal an affidavit or signed statement setting out the process by which the March 2007 restructuring took place and the reason or reasons why the applicant did not obtain a position following the restructuring. The respondent provided a comprehensive statement sworn by Melanie Wright, who was Human Resources Consultant at the time, was actively involved in the redeployment process on behalf of the hospital, and was a member of the Redeployment Committee consisting of representatives of the employer and the union. Ms. Wright indicated in her statement, and the applicant did not dispute, that she had personal knowledge of the steps and decisions taken around the applicant’