Baylet v. Universal Workers Union, 2009 HRTO 23

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Albert Baylet

Applicant

-and-

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 and Maria Da Silva

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Albert Baylet

Applicant

-and-

Dan Benedict Co-op Homes, Ellen Bowie and Leslie Staddon

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: January 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 23

Indexed as: Baylet v. Universal Workers Union

1These are two Applications filed on November 28, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents have filed their Responses. The purpose of this decision is to make case management directions with respect to a number of issues.

APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED TOGETHER

2The Applications are briefly summarized as follows:

T-0549-08: The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against in employment by the respondents, his trade union and an official of the trade union, when they failed to represent him in his dispute with the respondent employer.

T-0550-08: The applicant alleges that the respondents, his employer at the time discriminated against him on the basis of a disability when the employer terminated his employment.

3The Tribunal’s Rules for applications under section 53(3) of the Code are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of these Applications.

4These Applications involve similar facts and appear to raise similar legal issues. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these Applications should proceed together.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

5The respondent trade union has raised a preliminary issue that the subject matter of the human rights complaints on which these Applications are founded has been settled and therefore is barred pursuant to section 34(11)(b) of the Code or, alternatively dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

6The expectation is that most section 53(3) applications will be scheduled for mediation prior to the hearing and determination of preliminary matters. However, the Tribunal retains the discretion to control its process and will hear preliminary requests prior to the mediation in appropriate circumstances. Rule 4.1 provides that the Tribunal may exercise any of its powers under these Rules on its own initiative. Rule 4.3(d) provides that the Tribunal may determine and direct the order in which issues in a proceeding will be considered and determined.

7As a result, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to receive submissions with respect to whether, in the circumstances, this Application is barred by virtue of section 34(11) of the Code or, alternatively should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

8The Tribunal makes the following case management directions:

a. Within 20 days of the date of this decision, the applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal, submissions on whether these Applications are barred by virtue of section 34(11)(b) of the Code, or alternatively should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code;

b. Within 20 days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions, the respondents shall deliver to each other and to the applicant and file with the Tribunal a response to the submissions of the applicant on whether these Applications are barred by virtue of section 34(11) of the Code, or alternatively should be dismissed pursuant to section 45(1) of the Code;

c. Within 10 days of receipt of the respondents’ submissions, the applicant shall deliver to the respondents and file a reply to the submissions of the respondents, if any.

9The Tribunal may decide the preliminary issues on the basis of the written submissions. If oral submissions are required, the Tribunal will contact the parties to set a case resolution conference.

10I am not seized of these matters.