Darrell Hicks v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, 2014 HRTO 728

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darrell Hicks

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

Respondent

-and-

OECTA (Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association)

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 728

Indexed as: Hicks v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Darrell Hicks, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed on October 16, 2012, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination in employment.

2By Interim Decision dated May 15, 2013, 2013 HRTO 814, this Application was deferred pending the conclusion of related grievances. The Tribunal directed the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

3On February 20, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), seeking re-activation of the deferred Application. The applicant confirmed that he delivered the RFOP to the respondent and the intervenor. To date, the Tribunal has not received any response to the applicant’s RFOP, and the time for providing a response has passed.

4The Tribunal also received email correspondence from the applicant, dated March 18 and 20, and April 1, 2014, and copied to the respondent and the intervenor, regarding the status of his grievance proceedings. Based on the information provided by the applicant, it appears that at least one of the grievances to which this Application was deferred, regarding the applicant’s return to work, is being heard by an arbitrator and a continuation date is scheduled for June 17, 2014. In an earlier Interim Decision dated April 10, 2013, 2013 HRTO 594, the Tribunal noted that the subject-matter of this grievance appears to overlap significantly with the subject-matter of the Application.

5In the circumstances, it appears that the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is premature, as the grievance proceeding has not yet concluded and is scheduled to continue next month.

6The applicant’s RFOP to reactivate the Application at this point in time is dismissed.

7I am not seized.