HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kevin Law Applicant
-and-
Organizational Solutions Inc. and Kathryn Sinden Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: July 3, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1313 Indexed as: Law v. Organizational Solutions Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Kevin Law, Applicant Michelle Friedman
1This Application was filed on June 3, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities on the ground of disability.
2The Application alleges that Organizational Solutions Inc., the organizational respondent, and its manager, Kathryn Sinden, the personal respondent, were responsible for denying health benefits to the applicant when he was absent from work due to stress. The Application identifies Expertech, the applicant’s employer and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the applicant’s union, as affected parties.
3By Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 1323, the Tribunal deferred the Application on the basis that there were four outstanding grievances relating to the allegations made in the Application. The Application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievances. By Interim Decision 2009 HRTO 2285, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application on the basis that there was no indication that his grievances had been concluded and confirmed that the Application should continued to be deferred.
4The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on May 31, 2012 requesting that this Application be removed from deferred status because the arbitration of his grievances has been held in abeyance. The applicant provided a copy of a letter from his union confirming that the applicant’s grievance arbitration is held in abeyance “behind another Expertech arbitration dealing with whether Benefits can be arbitrated.” The letter concludes that “[a]dditional date(s) are required and there is no information available, as to when this might come about.”
5No submissions have been received from the respondents or the affected parties in response to the applicant’s request to reactivate the deferred Application and the timeline for filing response submissions has elapsed.
Decision
6The Application was originally deferred in August 2009 because the grievance process was in progress. It is now almost three years later and the applicant’s grievances have yet to be scheduled for arbitration. The information provided by the union indicates that the applicant’s arbitration is being held in abeyance pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding which appears to be considering a jurisdictional question of whether or not the issue of benefits is arbitrable. It is unclear when, and if, the applicant’s arbitration will be scheduled.
7Given the lengthy delay and the inactive status of the applicant’s arbitration, as well as the fact that there is no information as to when, and even if, the arbitration will proceed, I find that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application. The considerations and conditions that led to the deferral of this Application have not materialized. In the circumstances of this case, I conclude that reactivation is the most fair, just and expeditious approach to this Application.
8The Tribunal orders that this Application is reactivated.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of July, 2012.
Signed by
________________________________ Ena Chadha Vice-chair