Melendez v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 1817

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Amadeo Melendez Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Charles Pringle, Andrew Boszin, Cindy O’Reilly, Lorraine Burton, Charlotte Monardo and Rosanne Rinella Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: October 5, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1817 Indexed as: Melendez v. Toronto (City)

INTRODUCTION

1This Application was filed on October 14, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, and reprisal.

2In an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 398, the Tribunal determined that the Application would be deferred pending completion of a grievance process. In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal noted that there were a number of ongoing grievances, at least three of which overlapped substantially with the facts and human rights issues set out in the Application: Grievance Nos. C09-02-9410; C08-05-8911; and, C09-05-9572.

REQUESTS TO RE-ACTIVATE

3The applicant subsequently delivered to the respondents, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (the “union”), and filed with the Tribunal, a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) to re-activate his Application. In a second Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2132, the Tribunal indicated that the information before the Tribunal did not confirm that the grievance process had concluded. The applicant’s Request to re-activate his Application, at the time, was dismissed.

4On January 18, 2011, the applicant delivered to the respondents, and the union, and filed with the Tribunal, a second Request to re-activate his Application. The respondents and the union did not initially respond to the second re-activation Request. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated April 12, 2011, seeking submissions from the respondents and the union in response to the applicant’s second Request to re-activate his Application.

5On May 4, 2011, the Tribunal received submissions from the union. The union indicated that Grievance Nos. C08-05-8911 and C09-05-9572 were settled, and Grievance C09-02-9410 was awaiting a Grievance Committee meeting at which time a decision would be made as to how to proceed further.

6On May 11, 2011, the Tribunal received submissions from the respondent City and five of the individual respondents. With respect to Grievance No. C08-05-8911, the respondents submitted, in part, that the Minutes of Settlement were altered without the respondent City’s consent, were never received by the City, and are therefore void. With respect to Grievance No. C09-05-9572, the respondents submitted that it was in the process of being settled. Lastly, with respect to Grievance No. C09-02-9410, the respondents submitted that the City provided a Step 3 Response to the union on March 31, 2011, denying the grievance.

7On May 11, 2011, the Tribunal received email correspondence from the union indicating that it appeared there was a misunderstanding of the documents in the grievance files, clarification was being obtained, and a further response would be provided. As the Tribunal did not hear further from the union, the Tribunal issued a CAD dated September 6, 2011, directing the union to provide the Tribunal and the parties with an update of the status of the applicant’s grievances, and, in particular, the status of Grievance Nos. C08-05-8911, C09-05-9572, and C09-02-9410.

8The union provided submissions in response to the Tribunal’s CAD on September 15, 2011. The union confirmed that Grievance No. C08-05-8911 was settled, along with Grievance No. C08-07-9045, and attached Minutes of Settlement dated July 26, 2011, concerning these grievances. With respect to Grievance No. C09-05-9572, the union confirmed that it decided to accept the respondent City’s memorandum of settlement, which was confirmed by letter to the City dated January 3, 2011. Lastly, with respect to Grievance No. C09-02-9410, the union confirmed that its Grievance Committee met on June 20, 2011, and determined not to proceed any further with the grievance.

DECISION

9In its earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 398, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had three ongoing grievances that overlapped substantially with the facts and issues in the Application, namely Grievance Nos. C08-05-8911, C09-05-9572, and C09-02-9410. The Application was therefore deferred pending completion of the grievance process. It now appears that the grievance process has concluded with respect to these three grievances. In the circumstances, the applicant’s Request to re-activate his Application is granted.

10The respondents are directed to file Responses to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized.