James v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2013 HRTO 1816

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Anthony James

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, Ted Galea, Marlene Foley, Tim Baubie, Virgil Ruffolo, Claudio Caschera, Mike Aziz, Dave Sardina and Ernie Goncalvez

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: October 29, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1816

Indexed as: James v. Toronto Transit Commission

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Toronto Transit Commission, Ted Galea, Marlene Foley, Tim Baubie, Virgil Ruffolo, Claudio Caschera, Mike Aziz, Dave Sardina and Ernie Goncalves, Respondents

Lucy Siraco, Counsel

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, Respondent

Simon Blackstone, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). A Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated July 3, 2013 directed that a half day hearing by teleconference be scheduled to hear the parties' oral submissions on a number of issues.

2That CAD also sought written submissions from the applicant on the issue of whether he is barred from bringing this Application against the arbitrator, Daniel Harris Arbitrations, as a result of the application of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

3The applicant was given 21 days to provide those submissions. He has not sent in any submissions and the time for him to do so has elapsed.

4A second CAD dated September 16, 2013 was sent to the remaining parties allowing them an opportunity to make submissions in writing. The Tribunal has now received and reviewed those submissions.

5In her submissions, counsel for the respondent Toronto Transit Commission and the eight personally named respondents all of whom are current or former employees of the respondent employer, has also identified that two of the personal respondents, Virgil Ruffolo and Ernie Goncalves, have been incorrectly identified. Counsel has provided the Tribunal with the correct spellings of their names. The style of cause will, as a result, be amended accordingly.

6For the reasons that follow, this Application is dismissed as against the arbitrator, Daniel Harris Arbitrations.

7The Tribunal held in Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208, that the doctrine of judicial immunity attached to labour arbitrators, appointed pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995, in the exercise of their duties as adjudicators.

8All of the allegations referring or relating to Daniel Harris Arbitrations in the present Application concern decisions made by the arbitrator during the exercise of adjudicative functions while hearing and deciding the applicant's grievances, and, as such, are not properly the subject of an Application under the Code.

9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as against Daniel Harris Arbitrations.

10In addition, the names of two of the eight personally named respondents, Virgil Ruffolo and Ernie Goncalves, are corrected and the style of cause amended accordingly.