Thurtle v. William Osler Health Centre, 2012 HRTO 1240

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Timothy Thurtle

Applicant

-and-

William Osler Health Centre and Carillion Services Inc.

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: June 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1240

Indexed as: Thurtle v. William Osler Health Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Timothy Thurtle, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s Request for Interim Remedy and a jurisdictional issue arising from the applicant’s revised Application.

2The applicant filed this Application on July 6, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). His Application alleges that the respondents maintain a discriminatory policy concerning absences from work.

3The subject matter of the Application was also being addressed by a policy grievance by the applicant’s bargaining unit, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 145 (“CUPE”). The Application before this Tribunal was deferred by Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1908, and re-activated by Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 271, after the Tribunal was notified that the grievance was concluded by way of a settlement between CUPE and Carillon Services Inc., but not William Osler Health Centre, the other named respondent.

4A mediation is scheduled for this matter on August 31, 2012. The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy (Form 16) on June 21, 2012.

Decision

5Rule 23.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, relating to requests for interim remedies, states:

23.2 The Tribunal may grant an interim remedy where it is satisfied that:

a) the Application appears to have merit;

b) the balance of harm or convenience favours granting the interim remedy requested; and,

c) it is just and appropriate in the circumstances to do so.

23.3 A Request for an Interim Remedy must include:

a) a detailed description of the order sought;

b) one or more declarations signed by persons with direct first-hand knowledge detailing all of the facts upon which the Applicant relies; and,

c) submissions with respect to the merits of the Application, the balance of harm or convenience and why an interim remedy would be just and appropriate in the circumstances, in accordance with the Rule 23.2.

6The applicant’s Request was not supported by a signed declaration, as required by Rule 23.3(b) and on this basis alone must fail. Moreover, the applicant’s submissions concerning the harm simply states that “staff will continue to be harassed and discriminated against.”

7In TA v. 60 Montclair, 2009 HRTO 369, the Tribunal states that interim remedies are extraordinary and are only granted when the applicant is able to demonstrate that such a remedy is necessary to ensure a complete, appropriate and effective remedy at the end of a hearing. The applicant has failed to articulate in the instant case why such a remedy is necessary at this stage of the proceedings, when the Tribunal has not even heard evidence on the merits of the Application.

8In the circumstances, the Request for Interim Remedy is denied.