Cheryl Crawford v. O-I Canada Corp. and Wendy Purvis, 2013 HRTO 135

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cheryl Crawford

Applicant

-and-

O-I Canada Corp. and Wendy Purvis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: January 25, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 135 Indexed as: Crawford v. O-I Canada Corp.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cheryl Crawford, Applicant Self-represented

O-I Canada Corp. and Wendy Purvis, Respondents James Knight, Counsel

United Steelworkers Local 260, Affected Person Bernard Hanson, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on March 8, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, and this Interim Decision grants the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application. This Interim Decision also provides directions on how the Tribunal will deal with the other requests made by the parties.

BACKGROUND

2The respondents’ Response requested that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of grievance proceedings. The applicant consented, and the Application was deferred.

3Through her representative at the time, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings on September 20, 2012, seeking that the Application be reactivated on the basis that the grievance proceedings had concluded. The Request also sought to remove the corporate respondent on the basis that the corporate respondent “has settled the matters raised in the original application through the arbitration process and the applicant is satisfied with the settlement…”

4On October 4, 2012, the respondents filed a Response to the Request, copying the applicant’s representative. They opposed the Request, and asked that the Application be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because it has been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration proceeding dealing with the applicant’s grievances. The respondents provided the arbitrator’s decision and in particular cited the following passage in his reasons:

I take my obligation to consider human rights issues very seriously and I am satisfied that the deliberations of the parties under my supervision and my consequent Awards and Orders have fully considered the Grievor’s human rights, whether arising under statue or the collective agreement.

5The applicant’s union, which requested intervenor status but whose request has not been granted to date, also opposed the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application.

6On October 17, 2012, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal to advise that she is no longer representing the applicant, and has referred her to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

7In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 15, 2012, (“the CAD”) the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not responded to the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application under s.45.1 of the Code, and it directed her to confirm whether she wishes to proceed with her Application, and if she does, to provide submissions with respect to the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application under s.45.1 of the Code. The Tribunal warned that if the applicant did not file her confirmation by December 7, 2012, then the Application might be dismissed as abandoned.

8On December 6, 2012, the applicant, now self-represented, wrote to the Tribunal to confirm that she wished to proceed with her Application, but she did not copy the respondents with her confirmation until January 17, 2013. The respondents urge the Tribunal to dismiss the Application because she was late delivering to them her already filed confirmation of her wish to proceed, and because she did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction to provide submissions with respect to the respondents’ request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

9The applicant’s union, which requested intervenor status, but whose request has not been granted to date, also urged the Tribunal to dismiss the Application.

REQUEST TO REACTIVATE GRANTED

10It appears that all parties agree that the grievance process is completed. The applicant’s late delivery to the respondents of her reply to the CAD confirming her intention to proceed with her Application is neither a justification for a dismissal of her Application, nor a reason for the denial of her request to reactivate. Her request to reactivate is granted for the reason that there is no longer pending another process dealing with the same facts and/or issues.

DIRECTIONS RE: REMOVAL OF CORPORATE RESPONDENT and DISMISSAL UNDER S.45.1

11The applicant’s request to remove the corporate respondent and the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application under s.45.1 of the Code shall be dealt with at a teleconference hearing. The Tribunal will schedule it and provide notice of it to the parties. The applicant’s union is invited to attend, and shall also receive notice of the teleconference hearing. At the teleconference hearing, the union and the parties may be asked to provide positions with respect to the union’s Request to Intervene.

12Any further submissions that the parties wish to rely upon must be filed with the Tribunal and delivered to the other parties and to the union at least 14 days in advance of the teleconference hearing. The teleconference hearing could result in the dismissal of the Application. In order to know how to prepare for the teleconference hearing, the applicant should refer to the CAD which said:

It would be useful to the Tribunal for [the applicant] to comment on some of the Tribunal’s decisions in other cases on this issue (found on the Tribunal’s website through a link to www.canlii.org), like Brown v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2011 HRTO 1128, which dealt with a similar issue and dismissed that application, finding that the arbitration proceeding in that case dealt with the substance of that application even though personal respondents were not parties at the arbitration proceeding.

13I am not seized.