Esmama v. Carillion Services Canada, 2013 HRTO 595

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Esmama

Applicant

-and-

Carillion Services Canada

Respondent

Canadian Union of Public Employees Inc. Local 145

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: April 10, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 595

Indexed as: Esmama v. Carillion Services Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joseph Esmama, Applicant

Self-represented

Carillion Services Canada, Respondent

Dan Shields, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees Inc. Local 145, Intervenor

Susan Ballantyne, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request for the production of documents.

2In an Interim Decision dated March 22, 2012, HRTO 2012 HRTO 596, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the outcome of the applicant’s grievance and arbitration process. The Interim Decision also directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the process by which an Application may be re-activated following a deferral.

3On February 18, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings (“RFOP”)( requesting that the Tribunal order the respondent and intervenor to produce copies of his employment file, his PDA records, his grievances, the results from settlement discussions held at the first day of his arbitration hearing on December 12, 2012 and confirmation of his arbitration hearing dates. The respondent submits that it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to issue an order in response to the applicant’s RFOP given that that the Application has been deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process which is still continuing.

4The intervenor submits that it takes no position with respect to the documents the applicant has specifically requested from the respondent (i.e. his employment file and PDA records). It indicates that it is providing the applicant with copies of his grievances and the notice for his arbitration hearing. It states that there are no notes from the settlement discussions held on December 12, 2012.

5On March 12, 2013 the applicant filed a further RFOP requesting that the Tribunal order the respondent to produce copies of his employment file and his PDA records. The respondent and intervenor have not responded to this request.

DECISION

6The Tribunal will not consider the applicant’s request for the production of documents at this time given that the Application has been deferred. The applicant may renew his request in the event that his Application is re-activated pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 following the conclusion of his grievance and arbitration proceeding.