Daoust v. Sudbury Regional Hospital, 2012 HRTO 1868

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suzanne Daoust

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Regional Hospital operating as Health Sciences North and Laura Thompson

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 11623

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1868

Indexed as: Daoust v. Sudbury Regional Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Suzanne Daoust, Applicant Self-represented

Sudbury Regional Hospital operating as Health Sciences North, and Laura Thompson, Respondents Diane Barbeau, Representative

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 11623, Intervenor Mona Staples, Representative

1The applicant filed this Application on August 8, 2011 under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By way of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 8, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

3On September 10, 2012, the applicant filed a request to reactivate the Application on the basis that the grievance was no longer in progress. The applicant provided a copy of a notification indicating that the union intervenor has “[w]ithdrawn the grievance without prejudice or precedent”.

4On September 21, 2012, the respondents filed submissions opposing the continuation of the Application. The respondents confirm that the grievance is withdrawn. The respondents argue that the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because the grievance process has resulted in an appropriate resolution of the matter. The respondents claim that the withdrawal of the grievance supports the respondents’ position and, therefore, the continuation of the Application is an abuse of process.

5On September 26, 2012, the union intervenor wrote to the Tribunal indicating that it takes no position with respect to the applicant’s request to reactive the Application.

Reactivation

6The information provided by the parties confirms that the applicant’s grievance is withdrawn and, as such, there is no on-going or outstanding grievance process. On this basis, I find that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.

Section 45.1

7Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

8There are two parts to the inquiry under s. 45.1: (1) whether there was another “proceeding” and (2) if so, whether it “appropriately dealt with” the substance of the Application.

9Based on the parties’ submissions and documentary materials, the grievance was withdrawn without prejudice or precedent. As such, there appears that there was no formal resolution of the matter by way of a full and final settlement or arbitration decision or other adjudicative process disposing of some or all of the issues raised in the Application.

10As such, I find that no “proceedings” have been completed which have dealt with the substance of the applicant’s allegations as within the purview of section 45.1 of the Code. Consequently, the respondents’ request for dismissal under section 45.1 and/or for abuse of process is denied.

DIRECTIONS

11The Tribunal orders that this Application is reactivated. The respondents are required to file a full Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

12I am not seized of this matter.