Howarth v. Niagara Emergency Medical Services/Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2013 HRTO 523

B E T W E E N:

John Howarth Applicant

-and-

Niagara Emergency Medical Services/Regional Municipality of Niagara, Gary Burroughs, Elfreide Lane, Dennis Delano, John Cunnane, Kevin Smith, Steve VanValkenberg, Franco Meffe, Andrew Scott and Daimen Perry Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Melanie Howarth Applicant

-and-

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 27, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 523 Indexed as: Howarth v. Niagara Emergency Medical Services/Regional Municipality of Niagara

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

John Howarth, Applicant ) Self-represented Melanie Howarth, Applicant ) Self-represented

1These Applications were filed by spouses regarding related circumstances. In April 2012, both Applications were deferred by way of interim decisions (2012 HRTO 812 and 2012 HRTO 813) pending the completion of grievance proceedings. On March 15, 2013, the Tribunal wrote to the parties requesting information as to the status of the grievances proceedings which were the basis for the deferral of the Applications.

2On March 19, 2013, the applicants wrote to the Tribunal advising that their grievances were settled. The applicants requested that their Applications be “suspended” and that they be permitted to reserve the right to reinstate the Applications should the respondents re-engage in the alleged discriminatory practices.

3On March 20, 2013, the respondents wrote to the Tribunal advising that in May 2012, the applicants, their union and the respondent organization entered into a Memorandum of Agreement in which the applicants agreed to unconditionally withdraw their Applications. The respondents request that the Applications be dismissed or withdrawn.

4It appears that the applicants are requesting that the Tribunal hold their Applications in abeyance in order to maintain their rights should they wish to revive their claims against the respondents. The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of applications: see section 40 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”) and Rule 1.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”). Subject to exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal generally does not hold applications in abeyance. While the Tribunal has discretion with respect to its processes, the purposes for holding a matter in abeyance must be consistent with the Tribunal’s Rules, its mandate and the goals of the Code. The Tribunal’s deferral process is intended to avoid concurrent proceedings and it appears that all parties agree that the other legal process has been concluded for almost ten months. As such, I see no basis to hold these matters in abeyance or to suspend the closure of the files.

5If the applicants had wished to continue with their Applications following the completion of the grievance proceedings, they were required, in accordance with Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules, to request reactivation within 60 days from the conclusion of the grievance process.

6Based on the respondents’ information, it appears that the applicants undertook to withdraw these Applications as part of an agreement to resolve their workplace grievances.

7In these circumstances, the Tribunal directs that, within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, each of the applicants are required to do one of the following:

i. File with the Tribunal, and copy to the respondents, a Form 9 Request to Withdraw the Applications;

ii. File with the Tribunal, and copy to the respondents, a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings setting out, in accordance with Rule 14, the grounds and supporting documentation for reactivation and an explanation for the delay in filing the reactivation request;

8If the applicants fail to comply with the above-noted direction within the requisite timeframe, the Tribunal may deem the Applications to be abandoned and close its files.

9I am not seized.

Dated at Toronto this 27th day of March, 2013.

“Signed by”

Ena Chadha Vice-chair