Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2012 HRTO 1982

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Williams Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission, Lori MacGregor and Nick Valente Respondents

-and-

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: October 18, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1982 Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donald Williams, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Transit Commission, Lori MacGregor and Nick Valente, Respondents Lucy Siraco, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed this Application on June 28, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of the applicant’s association with an individual protected under the Code.

2By way of Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1241, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of a motion to dismiss in grievance arbitration before Arbitrator Louisa Davie.

BACKGROUND

3The hearing before Arbitrator Davie is with respect to an alleged unfair dismissal of EM, a co-worker and friend of the applicant, who raised human rights concerns in the workplace. The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination and reprisal in the workplace because of his association with EM.

4Issues arose in the arbitration hearing with respect to EM’s dissemination of confidential information in breach of non-disclosure obligations. The applicant’s allegations and documents accompanying his Application rely on some of the confidential information in dispute in the arbitration.

5On August 13, 2012, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal advising that the hearing of the motion to dismiss was concluded and that Arbitrator Davie issued an Interim Award on or about June 17, 2012. The Interim Award deals with the various contraventions of the rule of implied undertaking and confidentiality. The Interim Award ordered the participants in the arbitration to strictly adhere to the requirement to not disclose or discuss any documents or evidence arising out of the arbitration.

6The respondents provided to the Tribunal a copy of the Interim Award and also provided a copy of a July 20, 2012 letter from Arbitrator Davie granting the respondents permission to release a copy of the Interim Award to the Tribunal and the applicant for the purposes of proceeding with this Application.

REACTIVATION

7On September 24, 2012, the applicant filed a request to reactivate the Application on the basis that the motion before Arbitrator Davie was concluded and the Interim Award released. It appears that the applicant received a copy of the Interim Award on or about August 13, 2012, as part of the respondents’ above-noted correspondence.

8Neither the respondents nor the intervenor filed submissions in response to the applicant’s request to reactivate.

9Given that the motion to dismiss is completed and an interim order has been rendered, it is appropriate to reactive the Application.

10The Tribunal’s previous Interim Decision noted that the respondents assert that the allegations in the present Application are examples of the breaches of confidentiality considered by Arbitrator Davie and, as such, the Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the Application is based upon confidential and improperly obtained information. Alternatively, the respondents argue that paragraphs in the Application relating to the confidential and improperly obtain information should be struck.

11In the circumstances, there appears to be an issue of whether or not it constitutes an abuse of process for this Tribunal to proceed with an Application which may include information that is in violation of orders issued by another tribunal. The Interim Decision deferring this Application stated that if the Application is reactivated the respondents’ request to dismiss or strike parts of the Application will be determined upon reactivation.

ORDERS

12The Tribunal orders as follows:

(i) The Application is reactivated;

(ii) The Tribunal will schedule a half day teleconference to hear oral submissions with respect to the respondents’ requests to dismiss/strike on the basis of abuse of process;

(iii) Twenty-one (21) days prior to the date of the teleconference, the parties and the intervenor are required to file with the Tribunal, copied to each other any written submissions, documentation and supporting case law they wish to rely upon for the teleconference hearing; and

(iv) The Tribunal will consider the materials and may issue further directions with respect to any of the issues set out above and/or may schedule future steps accordingly.

13The Tribunal draws the attention of the parties and the intervenor to Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which states that “[p]arties and their representatives may not use documents obtained under these Rules for any purpose other than in the proceeding before the Tribunal. Specifically pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules and, generally, in accordance with the implied undertaking rule, participants in the Tribunal process should not disclose or use documentation arising out of the Tribunal’s proceedings for other purposes.

14I am not seized.