Martin v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 1746

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Delroy Martin

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79

Intervenor

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: December 3, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1746

Indexed as: Martin v. Toronto (City)

APPEARANCES

Delroy Martin, Applicant

Self-represented

City of Toronto, Respondent

Michael Martosh, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, Intervenor

Melissa Kronick, Counsel

1By Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 82, dated January 16, 2012, this Application was deferred by the Tribunal pending the outcome of a grievance proceeding and then reactivated by Case Assessment Direction on April 25, 2014 (“CAD”). The Application was set for oral submissions on the application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and contained the following instructions to the parties:

It appears that the substance of the Application may have been appropriately dealt with, in whole or in part, by the January 31, 2014 arbitration decision, and there is an issue as to whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

2The applicant alleges discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, colour and sex in the context of his employment with the respondent.

3The applicant filed a grievance. The parties were unable to resolve the grievance and as a result it was advanced to arbitration. The allegations of discrimination and reprisal which are contained in the Tribunal Application were also argued before the arbitrator Dana Randall. Arbitrator Randall issued a Decision on January 31, 2014 following seven days of hearing.

4Arbitrator Randall considered the allegations of discrimination and reprisal which are raised in the Application before this Tribunal. He articulated the allegations, heard evidence, made findings of fact and concluded that the applicant’s claims of discrimination and reprisal had no merit.

5Having reviewed the Decision of Arbitrator Randall, the written submissions of the parties and their oral submissions which were provided by conference call on September 8, 2014, I have determined that the substance of this Application has been appropriately dealt with in the arbitration process. To permit the Application to proceed would be tantamount to sitting in review of the Decision of Arbitrator Randall who thoroughly canvassed the issues which form the subject-matter of the Tribunal Application. The Tribunal is not empowered with such authority.

6Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.