States v. York University, 2009 HRTO 1502

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Tom States Applicant

-and-

York University Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: September 18, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1502 Indexed as: States v. York University

1This is an Application filed on June 22, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in employment and housing on the basis of a number of specified grounds.

2This Interim Decision addresses the Request for Order during Proceedings (RFOP) filed by the Governing Council of the University of Toronto (“U of T”) to have itself removed as a respondent; the applicant’s RFOP seeking, among other things, to withdraw the Application as against all respondents except York University (“York”) and the deferral of the Application; as well as York’s failure to file a Response to the Application (Form 2).

Removal of U of T

3Pursuant to an earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1015, the U of T delivered an RFOP to be removed as a respondent to all parties. The RFOP is not opposed. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders that U of T be removed as a respondent and the style of cause be amended.

Withdrawal against personal respondents

4The applicant filed an RFOP seeking, among other things, to withdraw the Application against the personal respondents. That request is not opposed. Accordingly, the Application is withdrawn as against the personal respondents and the style of cause amended.

Deferral

5The applicant also requests the Application be deferred pending the applicant's attempts to resolve the substance of his complaint through the process available under the collective agreement between York and his union.

6York’s response on the issue of deferral is not clear. There is some indication that York may consent to defer. York is therefore directed to clarify its position on the request to defer by way of a letter to the Registrar, copied to the applicant, by September 30, 2009. If York opposes deferral the letter must include its reasons in support of its position.

York’s failure to file a Response

7While York has responded to the applicant’s Request to expedite and the RFOPs, it has not filed a Response to the Application. This may be an oversight. York is not required to file its full Response to the Application pending the Tribunal’s decision on the request to defer and any directions contained in that decision.

8I am not seized.