Toop v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2012 HRTO 2382

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sheryl Toop

Applicant

-and-

CUPE, CUPE Ontario, Paul Moist, Nancy Rosenberg, Barbara Williams, Patrick (Sid) Ryan, Candace Rennick, and Linda Thurston-Neeley; CUPE Local 1974, Louis Rodrigues, Ken Bethune and Mitchell Vivian; and, Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP and Susan Ballantyne

Respondents

iNTerim DECisION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: December 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2382

Indexed as: Toop v. Canadian Union of Public Employees

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under s. 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 and membership in a vocational association because of disability, marital status, sex and association with a person identified by a ground in the Code.

2By Interim Decision dated December 29, 2009, 2009 HRTO 2254, this Application was deferred pending conclusion of the applicant’s grievance proceedings, and two applications with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “OLRB”), in particular, an application under s. 74 and an application under s. 87 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, sched. A (“LRA”).

3On June 15, 2012, the Tribunal received a signed Form 25, confirming that this Application was settled as against the applicant’s employer and six named individual respondents. By letter dated June 20, 2012, the Tribunal confirmed that the Application was closed with respect to the respondents who had entered into a settlement.

REQUEST TO RE-ACTIVATE APPLICATION

4On June 29, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to re-activate her deferred Application, confirming that the grievance was settled. On July 13, 2012, the respondents, Raven, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP and Susan Ballantyne (“the law firm respondents”), filed a Response to the RFOP, indicating their consent to the re-activation of the Application. These respondents also indicated that upon re-activation of the Application, or at the direction of the Tribunal, they would bring a Request for Summary Hearing.

5In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 17, 2012, the Tribunal directed that: (a) the applicant file submissions with respect to the status of the OLRB proceedings, and a civil proceeding between her and a number of respondents, within 14 days of the date of the CAD; (b) the law firm respondents file a Request for Summary Hearing within 14 days of the date of the CAD; (c) the applicant file a Response to the Request for Summary Hearing within 14 days of receiving the Request; and, (d) the remaining respondents file submissions in response to the submissions required of the parties within 35 days of the date of the CAD.

6On July 31, 2012, the law firm respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing. In their Request, the law firm respondents indicate that the various OLRB proceedings have concluded. By correspondence of the same date, the applicant confirmed that the civil proceeding, and at least one of her OLRB applications, had concluded.

7On August 16, 2012, the respondents, CUPE, CUPE Ontario, Paul Moist, Nancy Rosenberg, Barbara Williams, Patrick (Sid) Ryan, Candace Rennick and Linda Thurston-Neeley (“the union respondents”), sought and were granted an extension of time to file their submissions until September 14, 2012. On September 14, 2012, the union respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing, and confirmed their consent to the applicant’s RFOP to re-activate the Application. They also confirmed that the applicant’s applications before the OLRB had been fully adjudicated.

8The applicant does not appear to have responded to the Requests for Summary Hearing and the time for doing so has passed. It also appears that the remaining respondents, CUPE Local 1974, Louis Rodrigues, Ken Bethune, and Mitchell Vivian (“the local union respondents”), have not responded to the applicant’s RFOP, nor have they filed submissions further to the Tribunal’s CAD dated July 17, 2012, and the time for doing so has passed.

9In the circumstances, the applicant’s RFOP to re-activate the Application is granted, as it appears that the proceedings to which the Application was deferred have concluded, and the RFOP is not opposed.

10The Tribunal will issue a separate CAD addressing the next steps in this matter.

11I am not seized.