Thomas v. IATSE Local 822, 2015 HRTO 1150

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rose Marie Thomas

Applicant

-and-

IATSE Local 822, Domenic Marcone, Cheryl Batulis, Heather Clarkson, Mathew Loeb, David Mirvish, Blair Egglestone, IATSE 58, IATSE 129, IATSE 461, Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment Ltd., Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: August 31, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1150

Indexed as: Thomas v. IATSE Local 822

1This Application was deferred pending the Tribunal’s determination of another Application, Tribunal file number 2009-02058-I (“2009 Application”): 2013 HRTO 353. On August 11, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (“RFOP”) asking that this Application be reactivated. The purpose of this decision is to determine that request.

2The applicant filed this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondents discriminated against her in employment, contracts, and in membership in a vocational association based on disability and sex. She also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

3In a previous Interim Decision, I held that there is a significant overlap between this Application and the 2009 Application. Both matters raise similar legal and factual issues and the success of this Application will depend in part on the factual conclusions the Tribunal makes in the 2009 Application, particularly concerning the allegations against Mr. Marcone. For these reasons, I held that the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding was to defer consideration of this Application pending the Tribunal’s determination of the 2009 Application: 2013 HRTO 353.

4On June 30 2015, I issued an Interim Decision, dismissing the 2009 Application in part: 2015 HRTO 872. The allegations against the Applicant’s union and her former employer were dismissed, but I held that the 2009 Application could proceed against the personal respondent, Domenic Marcone. At this stage of the 2009 Application, I have made no findings as to the merits of the allegations against Mr. Marcone.

5The applicant has asked that this Application be reactivated. That request is premature. While all of the other issues raised in the 2009 Application have been determined, the allegations against Mr. Marcone remain outstanding. The outstanding allegations against Mr. Marcone give rise to overlapping issues between the two applications. For this reason, it is not appropriate to reactive this Application until the 2009 Application has been finally determined in its entirety.