Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 1245

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Groves

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by

the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services,

Paul Greer, Tony Roth, Anthony Valaitis and Kaskim Levy

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: June 29, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1245

Indexed as: Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Michael Groves, Applicant ) Peter A. McSherry, Counsel

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of )

Ontario as represented by the Minister of ) Susan Munn, Counsel

Community Safety and Correctional Services, )

Paul Greer, Tony Roth, Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed pursuant to 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 was discriminated against, harassed and subjected to a poisoned workplace on the basis of his disability. The respondents deny the allegations.

2On August 30, 2010, processing of the Application was deferred by the Tribunal pending the outcome of the workplace grievance-arbitration procedure undertaken by the parties. See Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1779. The purpose of the present Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceeding filed June 10, 2011, seeking re-activation of the Application.

3The applicant submits that re-activation of the Application is warranted because, “ …Union – Employer Grievance procedure is not being processed in a timely manner and will result in a denial of justice due to delay in hearing the Complaint on it’s merits”.

4On July 22, 2011, the employer respondent filed a Response objecting to the Request to re-activate.

DECISION

5Tribunal Rule 14.4 provides:

Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any [emphasis added].

6The Interim Decision deferring the Application found (at paragraphs 6-7):

The applicant filed a grievance prior to this Application alleging “harassment/discrimination” based on his disability against a co-worker, and condonation by management. The grievance appears to arise out of the same facts and allegations as set out in this Application.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process…. [emphasis added]

7It appears that, in essence, the applicant is now attempting to re-litigate the original Interim Decision to defer the Application. It may be that the applicant is dissatisfied by the slow pace of the grievance-arbitration procedure; however, that is not a sufficient reason to re-active the Tribunal process: see Parris v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 686. A decision to defer consideration of the Application, until “the completion of the grievance arbitration process”, has already been made by the Tribunal and will not be reversed.

ORDER

8The Request to re-activate the Application is denied.

9I am not seized.