Melville v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 1318

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrea Melville

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: September 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1318

Indexed as: Melville v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrea Melville, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent

Omo Akintan, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, Respondent

Douglas Wray, Counsel

1This Interim Decision explains why the Tribunal is denying the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Application, which alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 22 the Tribunal deferred this Application to allow a pending grievance brought by the union on behalf of the applicant to proceed to arbitration.

3The applicant is requesting reactivation of the Application because she maintains that she was not given a “fair opportunity” at the arbitration hearing and that it would be more expeditious for the Tribunal to deal with her Application.

4To date there have been seven days of hearing before an arbitrator. The applicant’s evidence has been completed and the respondent City of Toronto has begun to present its case. On the last day of hearing that has been held so far the applicant expressed dissatisfaction with how she was being represented by the union. The arbitrator adjourned the hearing to enable the applicant first to seek her own legal advice and then to communicate with counsel for the union.

5Following an exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the union, the union has indicated to the arbitrator that it wishes to withdraw the grievance. The City opposes withdrawal of the grievance and takes the position that a withdrawal can only come about with the permission of the arbitrator.

6By letter to the parties dated August 25, 2014, the arbitrator indicates that the hearing is scheduled to resume in October of 2014. She further indicates that the union will need to provide its position on what order she should issue in the circumstances. If this outstanding issue is not resolved before the resumption date, then the hearing will continue on that date and the issue of the requested withdrawal will be the first order of business.

7It is evident from this sequence of events that the arbitration process has not run its course. Time, effort and money have been expended on a hearing in which evidence has already been taken. To reactivate the Application in the middle of the arbitration would undermine the purpose of the Tribunal’s initial decision to defer. Given the advanced stage of the arbitration, it is appropriate in the circumstances to continue to defer consideration of this Application.

order

8The request to reactivate the Application is denied until completion of the arbitration process. Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).