Hillier v. Benteler Automotive Canada Corp., 2012 HRTO 2038

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Terry Hillier Applicant

-and-

Benteler Automotive Canada Corporation, Doreen Henschel, Michelle Coulter and Bill Maurais Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: October 25, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2038 Indexed as: Hillier v. Benteler Automotive Canada Corp.

Written Submissions

Terry Hillier, Applicant Self-represented

Benteler Automotive Canada Corporation, Doreen Henschel, Michelle Coulter And Bill Maurais, Respondents Jessica Young, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, association with a person identified by disability and reprisal.

2On July 29, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1170, deferring this matter pending the outcome of a grievance arbitration. The file remains deferred to this date.

3On September 10, 2012, the respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, asking that the Tribunal dismiss this matter pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. The parties were advised by a Case Assessment Direction, dated September 26, 2012, that in order for the Tribunal to address the Request to Dismiss, the Application must be first reactivated. The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10), seeking reactivation on October 10, 2012.

4The applicant filed a Response to the Request for an Order (Form 11) on October 13, 2012. Other than making reference to two attached documents (an 8-page Appeals Resolution Officer Decision from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and a 50-page Decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Nurses), the applicant appears to take no position on the reactivation request.

5However, in his earlier Response to the Request for an Order (Form 11) to the s. 45.1 request, the applicant notes that he and his union are seeking approval of the union's legal department to appeal the Decision of Arbitrator Brown. The applicant has provided no update with respect to this, and it would appear that no appeal has been taken and there is no ongoing grievance proceeding. Accordingly, this Application is reactivated.

6As noted above, the respondents have requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis of section 45.1 of the Code. Section 45.1 of the Code provides:

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.

7The Tribunal concurs that it is appropriate to hold a half-day teleconference hearing to determine whether the grievance proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application (section 45.1). The directions below will apply to the hearing.

Orders

8I make the following orders/directions:

a. the Application is reactivated;

b. a half-day teleconference hearing on the request to dismiss pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code will be scheduled by the Registrar.

c. the following directions will apply to the hearing:

1. the hearing will address only the question of dismissal pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code;

2. the respondents should be prepared to proceed first at the hearing; and

3. any party wishing to rely on written materials not already filed with the Tribunal or any facts not contained in the Application or Response must deliver such documents or information to the other parties and file them with the Registrar no more than 21 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

9I am not seized of this matter.