Carmen Cuglietta v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, 2013 HRTO 2061

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Carmen Cuglietta

Applicant

-and-

City of Sault Ste. Marie

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: December 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2061

Indexed as: Cuglietta v. Sault Ste. Marie (City)

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 because of disability.

2The Application was deferred pending the resolution of a union grievance proceeding by Tribunal letter dated July 9, 2010.

3In a Case Assessment Direction dated October 8, 2013 (“the CAD”), the Tribunal set out the history of the deferral, including its previous communications with the parties about the status of the grievance.

4On May 13, 2013, the Tribunal again wrote to the parties requesting that the applicant provide an update about the status of his grievances. The applicant sent the Tribunal a letter dated May 21, 2013, in which he advised that the grievance proceeding was over and he would like to proceed with the Application.

5By letter dated June 6, 2013, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal objecting to the applicant’s attempt to reactivate his Application. It advised that the grievance and arbitration process upon which the deferral was based concluded in November 2011. The respondent attached to its letter a copy of an email dated November 7, 2011 from a union representative to the arbitrator confirming that because the grievances were withdrawn, the apparent hearing date would not be required.

6In the CAD, the Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which require that a party requesting re-activation do so within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding and stated that it appeared that the applicant’s request to reactivate was untimely. It referred to several Tribunal decisions which have held that the Tribunal has required a good reason explanation for the delay, when a party makes an untimely request to reactivate.

7At paras. 11 to 12, the Tribunal stated:

In the circumstances of this case, the applicant is directed to provide an explanation to the Tribunal as to why his request to reactivate was not made until May 21, 2013 when the union appeared to withdraw his grievances in November 2011. The applicant is directed to file these submissions with the Tribunal, copying the respondent, within 10 business days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction. If the applicant does not file any submissions, his Application may be dismissed as abandoned. The respondent is not required to file any submissions at this point.

Upon receipt of the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal may issue further case management directions.

8The applicant has not complied with the Tribunal’s direction to file submissions explaining why his request to reactivate is untimely or otherwise communicated with the Tribunal. The CAD was sent by courier to the applicant’s address and by email to the applicant’s email address. Neither was returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.

9In these circumstances, given the applicant’s failure to provide an explanation as to why his request to re-activate was made 18 months after the union withdrew his grievances, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.