Howarth v. Niagara Emergency Medical Services/Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2013 HRTO 632

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

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-

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

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 16, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 632 Indexed as: Howarth v. Niagara Emergency Medical Services/Regional Municipality of Niagara

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

John 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 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 The respondents requested that the Applications be dismissed or withdrawn.

4By way of Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 523, date March 27, 2013, the Tribunal noted that 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. The Tribunal determined that there was no basis to hold the Applications in abeyance or to suspend the closure of the files. The Interim Decision ordered the applicants to do one of the following within 7 days of the date of the Interim Decision:

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

or

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.

5The Interim Decision also expressly stated that "[i]f 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".

6The applicants failed to comply with the Tribunal's Order.

7Instead, on March 28, 2013, Mr. Howarth, on behalf of both applicants, wrote to the Tribunal contesting the respondents' description that the applicants agreed to "unconditionally" withdraw their Applications as part of the parties' May 2012 agreement. Rather, Mr. Howarth argues that the withdrawal was subject to the employer ceasing its alleged discriminatory conduct. Mr. Howarth further indicates that the applicants have "absolutely no interest in carrying this issue any further and had considered it resolved."

8These Applications were deferred by order of the Tribunal. The applicants failed to request reactivation and did not file a Form 9 as required by the Tribunal's March 27, 2013 Order. It also appears that the parties have considered the matter to be resolved. As such, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to close the files given the applicants have not requested reactivation, and have failed to file the Form 9 as required by the Tribunal's March 27, 2013 Order despite being advised that these Applications may otherwise be dismissed as abandoned. In all the circumstances the applicants are deemed to have abandoned these Applications and, accordingly, the Applications are dismissed on that basis.