HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Emy Bonnici
Applicant
-and-
Loblaws Inc.
Respondent
-and-
United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, Local 1000A
Intervenor
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Emy Bonnici, Applicant
Anton Bonnici, Representative
1This Application was filed on December 10, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability.
2This Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 689 pending the conclusion of the grievance process with respect to the applicant’s four grievances.
3On June 5, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking that the Tribunal reactivate the Application because the applicant is discouraged about the progress of the grievance procedures.
4Neither the respondent employer nor the intervenor union filed submissions in response to the applicant’s request for reactivation.
DECISION
5The applicant provided copies of correspondence exchanged between the applicant and his union. The documentation appears to indicate that the grievance process remains outstanding.
6The Interim Decision deferring this Application expressly noted that the matter was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process in order to avoid duplicitous proceedings.
7I find the basis for reactivation as set out in the Interim Decision has not been satisfied. The applicant has not established that the grievance process has concluded. As such, based on the applicant’s materials, I decline to reactive this Application. A request to proceed with a deferred application can only be granted when the other process, upon which the application was deferred, has been completed.
8Accordingly, the applicant’s request to reactivate this Application is denied.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of July, 2013.
“Signed By”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair