Volante v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1831

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patrick Volante

Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board and Joseph Geiser

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: October 31, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1831

Indexed as: Volante v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Patrick Volante, Applicant ) Self-represented

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board ) Jennifer Trepanier, Counsel

and Joseph Geiser, Respondents )

1The applicant filed the following four Applications 2010-07702-I, 2012-11211-I, 2012-11270-I and 2013-14894-I under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, CH.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2In the 2013 Application, the applicant alleges that the respondents reprised against him in a hiring decision because he launched grievances with respect to the three previous Applications filed with the Tribunal which are currently deferred.

3The applicant filed a Request For an Order during Proceedings requesting that the Tribunal reactivate the deferred three Applications. The respondents oppose the request to reactivate and submit that all four Applications should be deferred pending the resolution of the outstanding related grievance arbitration.

4On August 15, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“NOID”) with respect to the 2013 Application stating that it appears that it may be appropriate to defer that Application pending the resolution of other outstanding legal proceedings.

5The applicant and affected party did not file any submissions in response to the Tribunal’s NOID.

6The respondents filed submissions supporting deferral and the continued deferral of all the related files until the grievance arbitration process is complete. The respondents submit that there are on-going grievances that relate to the matters at issue in the Applications. The respondents note that an arbitration hearing has been commenced with respect to one grievance and hearing dates are scheduled up to April 2014. The respondents further reserve the right to seek an order to consolidate all of the Applications

DECISION

7There is no information before this Tribunal that the applicant’s grievances have concluded and, as such, there no basis to reactivate the currently deferred Applications. In fact, it appears there are at least two outstanding grievances, one of which at the arbitration hearing stage. Therefore, in the interest of efficiency and to avoid concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal will defer the 2013 Application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process and the conclusion of all grievances. Consequently, the applicant’s three previous Applications are to remain deferred until the grievances and grievance process comes to an end.

8For the reasons stated above, the applicant’s request to reactivate is denied and the 2013 Application is deferred. Rule 14 outlines the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on once the conditions set out directing the deferral have been satisfied.

9I am not seized.