Mavec v. Sanofi Pasteur, 2009 HRTO 871

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Louie Mavec

Applicant

• and-

Sanofi Pasteur Limited,

Kathy Heard, Wayne Pisano and Tina Clinton

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Louie Mavec

Applicant

• and-

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 1701,

and Rob Gardner

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: June 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 871

Indexed as: Mavec v. Sanofi Pasteur

1These are two Applications filed with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H-19, as amended (the “Code”). The first Application bears Tribunal file number TR-0096-09 and was filed against the applicant’s former employer and others on February 13, 2009 (the “Employer Application”). The second Application bears Tribunal file number TR-0112-09 and was filed against the applicant’s union and one personal respondent on February 19, 2009 (the “Union Application”).

2On May 12, 2009, the Tribunal sent a letter to the parties in both Applications stating that the Applications appear to relate to similar facts or issues and indicating the Tribunal’s intention to process these Applications together. On May 15, 2009, counsel for the respondents to the Employer Application indicated that they have no opposition to the Tribunal’s proposal. On May 23, 2009, the applicant wrote to express his opposition to the two Applications being processed together, on the basis that there were separate representatives for the respondents in the two Applications and because the respondents to the Employer Application have expressed an interest in mediation, whereas the respondents to the Union Application had not. No submissions have been received from the respondents to the Union Application.

3The Tribunal will process these two Applications together. The Employer Application alleges discrimination because of disability in relation to the applicant’s return from medical leave and his subsequent termination. The Union Application arises out of precisely the same factual circumstances, but alleges that the Union respondents discriminated against the applicant because of his disability in relation to their alleged failure to properly represent his interests in dealing with these issues and in relation to alleged collusion with the employer respondents in his termination. It is clear that there are overlapping facts and issues and that the most fair, just and expeditious manner of dealing with these Applications is to process them together.

4In addition, while the respondents to the Employer Application have expressed a willingness to engage in mediation, all respondents in both Applications have raised an issue arising out of certain Minutes of Settlement executed by the applicant on July 31, 2007 and take the position that both Applications should be dismissed on the basis of these Minutes of Settlement. In their materials, the respondents also have raised an issue regarding delay in the filing of the complaints underlying the two Applications. In my view, the most fair, just and expeditious manner of proceeding with these Applications is to hear and determine these preliminary issues first, prior to any mediation.

5Accordingly, the Tribunal will proceed to schedule a half-day hearing to address these preliminary issues. Within ten days of the release of this Interim Decision, the parties to both Applications will provide the Tribunal with all of their availability for a half-day hearing in September 2009.

6In addition, the parties shall file submissions in relation to these preliminary issues, including any evidence, argument and case law in accordance with the following schedule:

a. Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, all respondents shall serve and file their submissions in writing;

b. Within 14 days of receipt of the respondents’ submissions, the applicant shall serve and file his submissions, including any medical evidence upon which he relies to allege that he lacked capacity at the time he signed the Minutes of Settlement; and

c. Within seven days of receipt of the applicant’s submissions, all respondents shall serve and file any submissions in reply.