HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gary Wicks
Applicant
-and-
Electro-Motive Diesel Inc. Progress Rail Services, a Caterpillar Company and the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 27
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: February 27 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 320 Indexed as: Wicks v. Electro-Motive Diesel Inc. Progress Rail Services
1This is an Application filed on January 3, 2013 under s. 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 and reprisal. This Interim Decision responds to a number of issues raised by the parties.
2The respondent Electro-Motive Diesel Inc. Progress Rail Services, a Caterpillar Company (Electro-Motive) has filed a Response (Form 2). Electro-Motive indicates that it was incorrectly identified in the Application and the style of cause has been amended in accordance with this advice. The respondent has also filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) seeking the early dismissal of the Application because it is out of time and/or the allegation(s) disclose no prima facie case. The applicant has not yet filed a Reply (Form 3).
3The respondent Canadian Auto Workers, Local 27 (“CAW”) has not yet respondent to the Application. The applicant filed a Request (Form 10) seeking an order pursuant to Rule 5.5 with respect to the CAW. In apparent response to this Request the CAW has sought an extension of time to file a response citing the plant closure in February 2012 and difficulty in accessing the individuals implicated in the issues raised by the applicant. The CAW seeks an extension of 45 days to file their Response (Form 2).
4I am not satisfied that a 45 day extension to file a Response is required to ensure a fair opportunity to the CAW to respond to the allegations the applicant has made. On the other hand there is no basis for the applicant’s Request for a Rule 5.5 Order in the circumstances.
5In order to ensure the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of this Application the Tribunal makes the following Directions:
a. The applicant’s Request for an Order pursuant to Rule 5.5 is denied at this stage;
b. The CAW will deliver and file its Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Direction;
c. The applicant will deliver and file a Reply (Form 3) addressing Electro-Motive’s Request within 14 days of the date of this Direction;
d. The Tribunal may make further Directions with respect to this case upon receipt of these materials.
6I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of February, 2013.
”signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair