Jamie Wilson v. City of Toronto and Ivica Injic, 2015 HRTO 1600

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Jamie Wilson Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Ivica Injic Respondents

-and-

Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association, Local 3888 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: November 26, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1600 Indexed as: Wilson v. Toronto (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jamie Wilson, Applicant Andrew Wray, Counsel

City of Toronto and Ivica Injic, Respondents Omo Akintan, Counsel

Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association, Local 3888, Intervenor Mandy Wojcik, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was deferred by Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 673, dated May 22, 2015, pending conclusion of a grievance filed on behalf of the applicant by the Toronto Professional Firefighters’ Association (“the Association”).

2On November 19, 2015, the applicant made a Request to reactivate the Application, on the basis that the grievance has been placed in abeyance.

3The applicant submits that she was informed by counsel for the Association that if she rejected a settlement offer from the corporate respondent, her grievance would be placed in abeyance and she would be “free” to pursue her Application with the Tribunal. The applicant submits that she refused the corporate respondent’s settlement offer.

4The respondents oppose the reactivation on the basis that the grievance has not been concluded. The respondents indicate that the City of Toronto (the “City”) has not received any request for a deferral of the grievance and has advised the Association that it would not consent to a deferral should one be requested. The respondents submit that the grievance is to be referred to arbitration and the City has proposed arbitrators to hear the grievance. The respondents submit that the grievance remains active.

5The Association has responded to the Request to Reactivate. It indicates that it takes no position on the Request to Reactivate but wishes to ensure that the Tribunal has the correct information before making its decision on the Request. The Association states that it has not asked the City to hold the grievance in abeyance nor has it advised the City that it is withdrawing the grievance. It is the Association’s position that the grievance has not concluded and that it appears that the applicant has not yet conclusively decided to reject the possibility of a settlement. The Association also submits that it understands that the applicant may wish to revisit the settlement offer, and it is prepared to consider her wishes.

Reactivation

6The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide as follows:

14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

7In light of the fact that the grievance process has not been concluded, I find that there is no basis to reactivate the Application based on the information before the Tribunal at this time.

Order

8The request to reactivate is denied at this time. The Application remains deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

9I am not seized of the Application.