Soni v. Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Conference Centre and Spa, 2015 HRTO 713

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Satish Soni

Applicant

-and-

Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Conference Centre and Spa

Respondent

-and-

United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union, Local 333

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: June 1, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 713 Indexed as: Soni v. Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Conference Centre and Spa

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Satish Soni, Applicant Rahul Soni, Representative

Hilton Suites Toronto/Markham Conference Centre and Spa, Respondent Lorenzo Lisi, Counsel

1The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of disability and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him when it suspended him and changed his shift.

2In addition to filing this Application, the applicant filed two grievances with his union. The applicant’s union advised the applicant that it would not be pursuing his grievances to arbitration.

REquest to dismiss

3The respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with through the union’s grievance procedure.

4The applicant opposed the respondent’s request on the basis that the substance of the Application has not been addressed in any proceeding.

5Section 45.1 of the Code states:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

6The respondent’s request is denied. In order for s. 45.1 to apply, there must have been a “proceeding” that is alleged to have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The union’s grievance procedure is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of s. 45.1. If nothing else, a proceeding implies that a neutral third person has applied an objective legal standard to a certain set of facts and reached a conclusion. See Maxwell v. Cooper-Standard Automotive Canada Limited, 2013 HRTO 1482 at paras. 37-38. The union’s assessment of the applicant’s grievance does not meet this definition.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application is denied.

8Since both parties have agreed to mediation, the next step will be for the Tribunal’s Registrar to schedule a mediation.

9I am not seized of this matter.