HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jeffrey Johnston Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 1, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1641 Indexed as: Johnston v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
1This is an Application filed on September 21, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2In an earlier Interim Decision, dated December 22, 2010, 2010 HRTO 2521, the Tribunal ordered that the Application be deferred until the conclusion of an arbitration process.
3On June 20, 2011 the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to reactivate his Application. The Respondent has opposed this Request. This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be reactivated by the Tribunal.
4The applicant filed two separate but related grievances, 2007-2427 (the “2007 grievance”) and 2009-2075 (the “2009 Grievance”) which have been referred to the Grievance Settlement Board (the “GSB”) for hearing.
5In his Request to reactivate the Application the applicant relies on a decision of the GSB dated June 15, 2011 (the “GSB decision”), reported at 2011 CanLII 41861 (ON GSB), as evidence that the GSB ruled that it would not hear his grievance. The applicant states that “as the GSB proceedings are now closed, I believe that the HRTO is now clear to proceed with my complaint”.
6The applicant also relies on e-mail correspondence dated July 18, 2011, from his Union to the employer’s counsel which states that the Union will only proceed with the original grievance filed and suggests that it may not be proceeding with the 2009 grievance.
7The respondent advises that the GSB decision only deals with a preliminary issue with respect to the 2009 grievance and that the Board is still seized with both the 2007 and 2009 grievances. Further, it is the respondent’s position that even if the union ultimately does not proceed with the 2009 grievance, the arbitration process is not concluded because the 2007 grievance is still being scheduled to by heard before the arbitrator. The respondent opposes the applicant’s Request to reactivate the Application since the arbitration process is still ongoing and is not concluded.
DECISION
8In its earlier Interim Decision, the Tribunal determined that deferral of the Application was appropriate, and the Application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.
9Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, including the GSB Decision, it is clear that the arbitration process has not been concluded. Continuation hearing dates have been scheduled to deal with the two grievances referred to arbitration. I agree with the respondent’s position that, even if the 2009 grievance is not pursued by the Union, the arbitrator is still seized with the 2007 grievance, and therefore the arbitration process is ongoing and has not concluded.
10In the circumstances, the applicant’s Request to reactivate the Application appears to be premature. The Request to reactivate is therefore denied at this point in time.
11The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the arbitration process has been concluded.
12I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of September, 2011.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair