William Thomson v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2009 HRTO 2272

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Thomson

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation and Ontario Labour Relations Board

Respondents

interim decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: December 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2272

Indexed as: Thomson v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation

1The Tribunal is in receipt of correspondence from the parties regarding various matters including, amongst others, the following requests:

• The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation’s (“OSSTF”) request for production of materials and records from the applicant and the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) regarding the applicant’s previous Commission complaint and the applicant’s 2007-2008 dealings with the Commission regarding his concerns about the OSSTF and/or the Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) or, in the alternative, that the Commission produce a statement of facts providing information about these matters;
• The OSSTF’s and the OLRB’s request for direction as to whether or not they should file response submissions regarding the applicant’s submissions with respect to the issues of delay and whether the substance of the Application was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding;
• The applicant’s request for an extension of time to file submissions with respect to the issue of jurisdiction in relation to the OLRB; and
• The applicant’s request for direction as to whether or not he should file a new application or amend his current Application regarding his allegations of discriminatory treatment by representatives of the OLRB and allegations with respect to “membership in a vocational association” in relation to the OLRB.

DECISION

2The Tribunal is empowered under Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure to require any person to produce information in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it. The applicant has provided information that indicates the Commission rendered a decision in connection with this case and his employment-related concerns in 2000. Given the lack of clarity as to how the current Application is connected to the applicant’s previous Commission complaint, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to direct the Commission to provide information in this regard.

3As such, the Tribunal directs the Commission to deliver to the parties and file with the Tribunal, by February 15, 2010, a statement of facts in relation to any previous complaint filed by the applicant regarding his employment with the Toronto District School Board, the OSSTF and/or the OLRB. The statement of facts should include a copy of the complaint, any responses, any investigative report, any other facts related to the processing of the complaint by the Commission and the disposition of the complaint (subject to mediation privilege). The statement of facts should also include any information about communications between the applicant and the Commission and communications between the respondents and the Commission in 2007 or 2008 regarding any matters involving the applicant and the OSSTF, the OLRB, and/or the Toronto District School Board.

4The Registrar shall send a copy of the Application and the Responses to the Commission, along with this Interim Decision.

5The applicant has requested an extension of time to make submissions in response to prior Interim Decisions. The Tribunal has determined that it will proceed to consider all preliminary matters and in the circumstances has scheduled new timelines as set out below.

6By March 15, 2010, the OSSTF and the OLRB shall deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal written submissions and legal authorities regarding the following issues:

(i) Whether or not the Application is barred by virtue of section 53(8); (ii) Whether or not the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, because the substance of the Application was appropriately dealt with by other proceedings, specifically the Commission process, the grievance arbitration process and duty of fair representation complaints; (iii) Whether or not the Application should be dismissed because of delay; and (iv) Whether or not the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the OLRB’s adjudicative decisions.

7The applicant shall have until April 16, 2010, to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written reply submissions and legal authorities. In his materials, the applicant is also directed to make submissions explaining how his allegations with respect to the OLRB pertain to the social area of “membership in a vocational association” and how the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter.

8The Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to the following two recent decisions with respect to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over adjudicative decisions: Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208, and Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered, 2009 HRTO 2180. The parties may wish to address the issues raised in these decisions in their submissions.

9With regard to the applicant’s request for direction, the Tribunal is a neutral adjudicative body that cannot provide advice or rulings in advance and without hearing the submissions of all parties. Should the applicant intend to seek to amend his Application to include new allegations, he shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal by March 1, 2010, a Request for Order During Proceedings setting out how he wishes to amend his Application and why he alleges that the proposed amendments fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide. The respondents may respond by March 31, 2010.

10The Tribunal may decide this matter on the basis of the parties’ written submissions or may issue further case management directions.