Smit v. Diageo Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 2239

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Smit

Applicant

-and-

Diageo Canada Inc.

Respondent

-and-

CAW-TCA Canada

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Decision Date: November 29, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2239 Indexed as: Smit v. Diageo Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jonathan Smit, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed on August 11, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability, reprisal and association with a member of a protected group.

2The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 1208 pending the conclusion of the applicant’s grievance.

3On November 2, 2012, the applicant filed a request to reactivate this Application on the basis that the workplace grievance process is concluded with no decision having been made in the matter. The applicant provided a copy of an email exchange dated October 15, 2012 between a representative of the union and a human resources representative of the respondent employer confirming that the applicant’s grievance was withdrawn on June 13, 2012. The applicant notes that he learned of the withdrawal of the grievance outside of the sixty day time period for filing a request to reactivate. The applicant submits the delay in filing the request to reactivate was beyond his control.

4Neither the respondent nor the union, as an intervenor, have filed submissions in response to the applicant’s request to reactivate.

DECISION

5Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that a request to reactivate a deferred application must be made no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

6Pursuant to Rule 1.7, the Tribunal has the discretion to lengthen time limits provided for in the Rules.

7Neither the respondent, nor the intervenor, have stated any objection to reactivation.

8The October 15, 2012 email appears to suggest that the new president of the union was unaware that the applicant’s grievance had been withdrawn in June 2012.

9Given the applicant’s explanation for the delay and the documentary material confirming withdrawal of the grievance, the request to reactivate is granted.

10Accordingly, the Application is reactivated. Given that the parties agree to participate in mediation, the Tribunal will schedule a mediation in this matter.

11I am not seized of this matter.