Avila v. Toronto Zoo, 2009 HRTO 807

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Miguel Martin Avila Applicant

-and-

Toronto Zoo, Curtis Shalapata and Raymond Cho Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: June 10, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 807 Indexed as: Avila v. Toronto Zoo

1This is an Application to the Tribunal filed on March 26, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he has suffered discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of disability and race and that he has suffered reprisal.

2As the information in the Application indicated that there was an ongoing grievance concerning some of the matters before the Tribunal, the Tribunal issued a Tribunal Intent to Defer, dated May 4, 2009 to the parties and to CUPE Local 1600, named as an affected party. The parties were invited to send submissions responding to the Intent to Defer.

3The applicant filed a Request to Expedite on May 12, 2009. Attached to his request were Minutes of Settlement, dated May 1, 2009, and signed by the applicant, resulting from an arbitration process attended by the respondent employer, the applicant and his union. The Minutes include a paragraph in which the applicant agrees to withdraw all outstanding applications under the Code and in which he agrees that the Minutes of Settlement resolve all liability under the Code as of the date of the agreement. The applicant asks in his materials that the Tribunal assist him by “quashing” the paragraph of the Minutes that deals with withdrawal of his Application before the Tribunal.

4The union has filed responses to both the Intent to Defer and the Request to Expedite, asking that the Tribunal defer because of the process before the Arbitrator and the Minutes of Settlement resulting from same and requesting that the Tribunal refuse the Request to Expedite.

5Similar submissions have been received from the respondents, who have also asked that the Application be dismissed as a result of the release signed by the applicant on May 1, 2009.

6On May 26, 2009, the applicant submitted a Request to Withdraw his Application against one of the named personal respondents, Raymond Cho, and a person not named in his Application documents.

7In view of the applicant’s request to withdraw his Application against Raymond Cho and the respondents’ consent, the Tribunal orders the removal of personal respondent, Raymond Cho, as a party to these proceedings.

8Based on the material before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds no reason to expedite the processing of this Application.

9As the arbitration process has resulted in Minutes of Settlement, the deferral issue is no longer relevant.

10The Registrar will schedule a one hour conference call hearing to hear the parties’ submissions on whether the Application should be dismissed as a result of the signed Minutes of Settlement. The applicant should be prepared to provide his submissions on why he should be able to proceed with the Application in light of his agreement, in the Minutes of Settlement, to withdraw all outstanding applications under the Code.

11If any of the parties wish to rely on any written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) or facts not already before the Tribunal, they must deliver such additional material to the other parties and file it with the Registrar no later than two weeks before the date of the conference call.

12I am not seized.