Tony Sangiuliano v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole, 2013 HRTO 1737

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tony Sangiuliano

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: October 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1737

Indexed as: Sangiuliano v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tony Sangiuliano, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole, Respondents

Indira Sawh, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the ground of disability.

2In a previous Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1828, the Tribunal deferred the Application to the completion of the grievance proceedings, including arbitration if any. In a subsequent Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1447 (“the 2013 Interim Decision”), the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to have his Application re-activated.

3On August 30, 2013, the applicant filed another Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he requested to re-activate his deferred Application. In it, the applicant stated that his case with the Grievance Settlement Board (“GSB”) came to a halt as of June 26, 2013 due to preliminary objections from the corporate respondent, the parties are waiting for a decision from the Vice Chair on another grievance, and there are no future dates scheduled.

4The respondents filed a Response to the RFOP on September 13, 2013 opposing the re-activation of the Application. They submit that the applicant’s grievances are still currently before the GSB, the matter is still ongoing and had not been placed in abeyance. Further, the respondents rely upon the submissions that they filed in relation to the 2013 Interim Decision, which were dated August 13, 2013.

5As the Tribunal determined in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the 2013 Interim Decision:

The GSB hearing is still ongoing, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the GSB Vice Chair. It is unclear whether or not additional hearing dates before the GSB will be scheduled once the GSB Vice Chair issues his or her decision on the preliminary issues. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to defer the Application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process and/or the decision from the GSB Vice Chair.

The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the arbitration process. Specifically, the parties' attention is drawn to Rule 14.4 which requires that the request to proceed be filed no later than 60 days after the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

6Unlike Law v. Organizational Solutions Inc., 2012 HRTO 1313 where, at para. 4 of that decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had produced documentation from his union indicating that his grievance was being held in abeyance, the applicant in this Application has not produced such documentation. Instead, it appears that the GSB Vice Chair has not yet issued his or her decision regarding the preliminary issues, there is no new information pertaining to the GSB hearing, and that the applicant’s RFOP is basically a repetition of the submissions that he filed on July 31, 2013 which resulted in the 2013 Interim Decision.

7However, I am also mindful that this Application, which was filed on June 14, 2011, is still being deferred by the Tribunal.

8Accordingly, I find it appropriate to continue to defer the Application pending the release of the GSB Vice Chair’s decision on the preliminary issues or for a further three months, whichever occurs first. Once the GSB Vice Chair issues his or her decision on the preliminary issues, or at the end of the three month period if the decision has not been issued, if a party wishes to have the Application re-activated, then the party is to request re-activation in accordance with Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which is addressed in para. 5 above.

9I am not seized with this matter.