Jonathan Caron v. Enwin Utilities and Pat Devin-Doan, 2009 HRTO 1798

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Caron Applicant

-and-

Enwin Utilities and Pat Devin-Doan Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: October 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1798 Indexed as: Caron v. Enwin Utilities

1This is an Application filed on May 27, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, creed and sex. In an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1178, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the completion of a grievance process. The Tribunal also granted the respondents' Request for an Order ("Request") for an extension of time to file their Response (Form 2) 30 days following the date of the Interim Decision.

2On August 19, 2009, the respondents filed another Request that the deadline for the delivery of their Response be suspended until the Application is formally reinstated. The applicant opposed the respondents' Request and filed a Request that the Application be re-activated. It appears that the respondents did not respond to the applicant's Request; however, in correspondence dated September 10, 2009, the respondents advised that the parties met on August 14, 2009, before an arbitrator and have engaged in a mediation/arbitration process that is still ongoing.

3The respondents' Request that the deadline for the delivery of their Response be suspended until the Application is formally reinstated is granted. The deadline for filing the Response to the Application can be determined if and when the Application is re-activated.

4The applicant's Request that the Application be re-activated at this point in time is denied. In its Interim Decision, the Tribunal held that the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. There is no indication that the grievance process has concluded. Rather, it appears that the grievance process is ongoing.

5The applicant also filed a second Application with the Tribunal, alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal by the organizational respondent for claiming and enforcing his rights under the Code. It appears that this second Application has not been provided to the respondent and, on October 7, 2009, the applicant confirmed with Tribunal staff that he would instead file a Request that his first Application be amended to add the ground of reprisal and particulars. To date, the applicant has not filed a Request to amend his Application.

6If the applicant intends to amend his Application, he should deliver a Request to the respondents and his union and file the Request with the Tribunal, along with a Statement of Delivery, within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

7If the applicant files a Request to amend his Application, the respondents are not required to file a Response to a Request at this point in time. The respondents may file a Response to any Request of the applicant to amend the Application at the same time that they may be required to file materials in relation to the re-activation of the Application, pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

8I am not seized.