Eli Yunger v. City of Toronto, 2012 HRTO 1120

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Eli Yunger Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 Intervenor

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 6, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1120 Indexed as: Yunger v. Toronto (City)

Written Submissions

Eli Yunger, Applicant Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent Jeffery Board, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application concerns the policy of the City of Toronto to extend medical benefits after the age of 65 to some, but not all, retirees on the basis of whether they were 50 years of age or older on May 11, 2000.

2By way of Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 2254 the Tribunal deferred this Application pending disposition of a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - Divisional Court of an application for judicial review filed by the intervenor and involving the respondent regarding a policy grievance over the same subject matter as this Application.

3On March 16, 2012, the Divisional Court rendered a decision dismissing the application for judicial review.

4On May 2, 2012, the applicant filed a request to reactivate his Application.

5On May 16, 2012, the respondent filed a response to the request to reactivate. The respondent asks that the Tribunal dismiss the application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt by way of the Divisional Court ruling and/or res judicata, estoppel and abuse of process. Alternatively, the respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

6Given that the Divisional Court process is now completed, the Application is reactivated.

7The Tribunal will provide the parties with an opportunity to make oral submissions with respect to the above-noted issues raised in the respondent’s response and requests to dismiss.

8The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The Application is reactivated;
2. The Tribunal will schedule a half day teleconference to hear oral submissions with respect to the respondent’s requests to dismiss;
3. Thirty (30) days prior to the date of the teleconference, the applicant is required to file with the Tribunal, copied to the respondent, written submissions, any supporting case law or documentation addressing the respondent’s request to dismiss. The intervenor may also file submission in accordance with this deadline;
4. Twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the teleconference, the respondent is required to file with the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, reply submissions, supporting case law or documentation; and
5. The Tribunal will consider the parties’ materials and may issue further Directions regarding the order by which it will hear submissions with respect to any of the issues set out above and/or may schedule future steps accordingly.

9I am not seized of this matter.