Gordon Stack v. Greater Sudbury Hydro Plus Inc., 2009 HRTO 1276

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gordon Stack

Applicant

-and-

Greater Sudbury Hydro Plus Inc., Brian McMillan, Gary Lavallie,

and Henri Robillard

Respondents

intermi DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1276

Indexed as: Stack v. Greater Sudbury Hydro Plus

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on April 17, 2009 and alleges that the respondents engaged in reprisal against him in the area of employment. The applicant provided a 25-page chronology and narrative as part of his Application in which he raised various health and safety concerns, disputed discipline that had been issued to him and identified a number of concerns he has with different members of management and their management style. In the chronology, the applicant also referenced various grievances that had been filed on his behalf, two of which allege harassment. One of the grievances filed was settled by minutes of settlement. The other grievances remain outstanding.

2Following receipt of the Application, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer. The respondents filed submissions on the deferral issue and filed a Response. The respondents also raised other preliminary issues. The Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 4705 (the “union”) made submissions on deferral and filed a Request to Intervene. This Interim Decision will only address the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to address the applicant’s allegations that the respondents engaged in reprisal against him.

3Section 8 of the Code provides as follows:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

4On its face, the Application does not allege any facts within the scope of section 8. The applicant does not allege that he attempted to claim or enforce his rights under the Code, that he instituted or participated in proceedings under the Code or that he refused to infringe the right of another person under the Code.

5In the circumstances the applicant is required to deliver submissions to the respondents and the union and file them with the Tribunal setting out precisely that manner in which it is alleged that the respondents engaged in reprisal(s) against the applicant, contrary to section 8 of the Code. Such submissions must be delivered and filed by no later than August 25, 2009. The respondents may deliver to the applicant and the union, and the union may deliver to the applicant and the respondents, and file any reply submissions by no later than September 1, 2009.

6The Tribunal will review the submissions and may dismiss the Application or issue further directions to the parties. If the Application is not dismissed the Tribunal will determine the issue of deferral, the request to intervene and may address the other issues raised by the respondents.

7I am not seized of this matter.