Stephen Harris v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2010 HRTO 192

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Stephen Harris Applicant

-and-

Liquor Control Board of Ontario Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: January 27, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 192 Indexed as: Harris v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code") which alleges discrimination in employment on the ground of family status.

2This Interim Decision will address the applicant's Requests to reactivate his deferred Application and to expedite the hearing of the Application.

3The applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to grant him leave on December 24, 2009 in order that he can take care of his infant child while his wife attends religious ceremonies.

4In its Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 2307, the Tribunal ordered that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of a grievance process which was initiated by the applicant arising out of the same set of circumstances which gave rise to this Application. The Tribunal also denied the applicant's initial Request to expedite.

5In his Request to reactivate the Application, which was combined with a Request to expedite, the applicant states that the respondent did not respond to his grievance on December 4, 2009 at step three of the grievance procedure, as it was apparently required to do under the terms of the collective agreement. He therefore filed his two requests with the Tribunal on December 7, 2009. In his submissions, he suggests that if he does not report to work on December 24, he runs the risk of being fired.

6The respondent did not respond to the applicant's requests by December 21, which was the deadline for doing so.

7In my view, the respondent's failure to respond at the third step in the grievance procedure does not alter the fundamental considerations underlying the Tribunal's initial decision to defer the Application. As explained in that Interim Decision, the Tribunal's normal practice is to defer in circumstances where there is an ongoing grievance arising from the same circumstances. The submissions made by the applicant in his request to reactivate do not cause me to depart from that usual approach.

8With respect to the applicant's Request to expedite, it appears from the materials filed that the applicant believes that the Tribunal may have had the ability to provide a remedy to him before December 24. That was not the case and now that date has passed, the applicant will be required to seek his remedies before the Grievance Settlement Board if his grievances are referred to arbitration, or alternatively, this Tribunal if the matter is reactivated following the conclusion of the grievance process.

9For these reasons, the applicant's Requests to reactivate his deferred Application and to expedite the hearing of the Application are dismissed.

10I am not seized.