HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Fiorina Leoni
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto, Priscilla McLellan, and James Addy
Respondents
-and-
CUPE Local 79
Affected Party
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Bruce Best
Indexed as: Leoni v. Toronto (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Fiorina Leoni, Applicant
Self-represented
CUPE Local 79, Affected Party
J. James Nyman, Counsel
1The applicant’s union, CUPE Local 79 (“the union”), was named as a respondent in the Application. In its Response, the union indicated that it had prepared grievance forms and provided them to the applicant prior to this Application being filed, and that it was prepared to represent her in the grievance process.
2The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“the Request”) asking that the union be removed as a respondent. The union consented to being removed. The respondent City of Toronto (“the City”) and individual respondents did not file any response to the Request.
3The draft grievances addressed the same issues raised in the Application, including the claim that the employer had violated the terms of the collective agreement and the Code. As it was not clear whether the grievances had been filed, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) directing the union to advise the Tribunal of the status of the grievances, noting that if the grievances had been filed it would be appropriate to defer the Application.
4The applicant responded to the CAD, indicating that she did not have any grievances filed, nor did she intend to have any filed, and that she wished the Application to proceed against the City. The union also responded, indicating that it was still prepared to file the grievances, but as the applicant had declined their assistance it would support her in opposing deferral.
5As no grievance has been filed, I find it is not appropriate to defer the Application.
6Though the union’s willingness to represent her appeared to be the basis for the applicant’s Request to have them removed as a respondent, it is now clear that she no longer expects them to represent her. In the circumstances, and with no submissions from the City or individual respondents, it is appropriate to remove the union as a respondent.
7The union remains, however, an affected party, particularly as the issues in this Application largely arise under and will involve interpretation of terms of the collective agreement. If the union wishes to intervene, it may do so by filing a Form 28 in accordance with Rules 11.14.
8As the applicant and the remaining respondents have agreed to mediate, the Registrar will schedule a mediation with the Tribunal in the normal course.
Order
9CUPE Local 79 is removed as a respondent.
10The Application is not deferred.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of December, 2015.
“signed by”
Bruce Best
Vice-chair