Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
John Meriano Applicant
-and-
Benteler Automotive Canada Corp., Canadian Auto Workers National Office and Canadian Auto Workers Local 1285 Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: November 19, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1911 Indexed as: Meriano v. Benteler Automotive Canada Corp.
APPEARANCES
John Meriano, Applicant Self-represented
Benteler Automotive Canada Corp., Respondent Jessica Young, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on May 27, 2013, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and age.
2The applicant is an employee of Benteler Automotive Canada Corp. (“Benteler”). He is a member of the Canadian Auto Workers (“CAW”) Local 1285. He has named Benteler and both the CAW’s National Office and Local 1285 as respondents.
3In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 24, 2013, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. A summary hearing is held to determine whether an Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application, in whole or in part, will succeed. The CAD also identified that some of the applicant’s allegations appeared to be untimely and some may have been appropriately dealt with under another proceeding. The CAD indicated that the summary hearing would consider whether these allegations should be dismissed.
4The CAD further noted that the Tribunal has held that it is not discrimination for a union or association not to file or pursue a human rights claim or grievance unless the reason for doing so is based on the Code. The CAD indicated that the summary hearing would consider whether the applicant’s allegations concerning his union should be dismissed as they appeared to allege that the CAW failed to properly represent the applicant rather than allege that the union discriminated against the applicant because of his disability or age.
5The summary hearing was held by teleconference on September 9, 2013. During the summary hearing, I heard from the applicant and counsel for Benteler. The CAW’s National Office and Local 1285 were not present at the hearing.
BACKGROUND
6The applicant began his employment with Benteler in April 2004. He injured his shoulder while working in July 2007. He was placed on modified duties until March 2008 when he was laid off. This was the last time the applicant worked for Benteler. It appears the applicant continues to be a non-active employee.
7In January 2010, the applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination in relation to the events that gave rise to his July 2007 shoulder injury. The Tribunal dismissed this Application in a Decision dated July 16, 2010, 2010 HRTO 1551, on the grounds that the applicant’s allegations were untimely pursuant to section 34 of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-199