Tony Sangiuliano v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole, 2014 HRTO 886

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tony Sangiuliano Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: June 17, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 886 Indexed as: Sangiuliano v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tony Sangiuliano, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole, Respondents Indira Sawh, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the ground of disability.

2The Application was deferred pursuant to Interim Decisions, 2011 HRTO 1828, 2013 HRTO 1447 and 2013 HRTO 1737 because of grievances that the applicant has filed pertaining to the same issues as those raised in the Application. In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 1737, the Tribunal stated that the Application would be deferred pending the release of the GSB Vice Chair's decision on the preliminary issue or for a further three months, whichever occurs first.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings dated January 15, 2014 seeking to re-activate his Application ("the January Request") because "the grievance arbitration is taking too long". In the January Request, the applicant identified some of the dates in 2014 that were scheduled for his arbitration.

4The respondents filed a Response to a Request for Order During Proceedings ("response to Request"). In the response to the Request, the respondents noted that they were still waiting for the GSB Vice Chair to release her decision on the preliminary issue and that a number of arbitration dates were scheduled from April to September 2014. The respondents also submitted that regardless of the Vice Chair's ruling on the preliminary issue, the first grievance asserts that the Code was violated.

5In a Tribunal letter dated April 16, 2014, the Tribunal requested that the respondents provide a copy of the GSB decision, which they subsequently did. The respondents also submitted that the applicant has continued to testify before the GSB proceeding, including testifying in April 2014. They provided the GSB's notice of hearing setting out that 5 continuation dates were scheduled for 2014.

6In the circumstances of this case, the applicant's request is denied.

7The GSB decision only dealt with a preliminary issue raised by the corporate respondent – the timing of the referral of one of the grievances to arbitration. The GSB decision dismissed the corporate respondent's preliminary objection and directed that the arbitration continue on the previously scheduled days.

8From the GSB's notice of continued hearing days, which shows a number of hearing days scheduled from April to September 2014, it is clear that the arbitration on the applicant's grievances continues. Since the grievances raise the same issues as those raised in the Application, the Tribunal will continue to defer the Application.

9Accordingly, the Application continues to be deferred until such time as the arbitration process ends either by settlement or the issuance of the GSB Vice Chair's decision on the merits of the grievances. Once either of these events occurs, if a party wishes to have the Application re-activated, then the party is to request re-activation in accordance with Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.4 requires that the request to proceed be filed no later than 60 days after the other legal proceeding has concluded and includes a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding.

10I am not seized with this matter.