Joseph Esmama v. Carillion Services Canada, 2014 HRTO 349

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joseph Esmama

Applicant

-and-

Carillion Services Canada

Respondent

-and-

Canadian union of Public Employees, Local 145

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Date: March 13, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 349
Indexed as: Esmama v. Carillion Services Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joseph Esmama, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the two Applications he filed with the Tribunal.

2The Tribunal deferred consideration of the applicant’s two Applications by Interim Decisions, 2012 HRTO 596 and 2012 HRTO 1734, dated March 22, 2012 and September 13, 2012, respectively. The two Applications were deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance filed on his behalf by his union.

3On January 14, 2014, the Tribunal sent the applicant a letter requesting that he advise the Tribunal of the status of the grievance and arbitration proceeding. By letter dated February 13, 2014, the applicant indicated that his union and the respondent had entered into a settlement of his grievance. However, the applicant requested that his Applications remain deferred until the end of his probationary period due to his fear of being reprised against.

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. The Tribunal has the discretion to defer proceedings before it, and has applied this discretion where there are parallel legal proceedings between the parties. In some cases, the Tribunal has also deferred an Application in cases where an applicant is unable to take part in a hearing in the foreseeable future.

5I find that it is not appropriate to defer consideration of the Applications until the applicant’s probationary period is complete. The applicant continues to be protected by the Code’s reprisal provision in the future. A deferral is not required for this purpose.

6The applicant should take note that under Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a request to re-activate an application deferred pending the completion of another proceeding must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. An applicant who files a request to re-activate their application beyond this time frame risks having their application dismissed: see Marc-Ali v. Graham, 2012 HRTO 502.