Robert Weeden v. Sobeys Inc., 2016 HRTO 1090

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Weeden Applicant

-and-

Sobeys Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: August 15, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1090 Indexed as: Weeden v. Sobeys Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Weeden, Applicant Self-represented

Sobeys Inc., Respondent Mathias Link, Counsel

Background

1This Application was deferred by way of letter from the Tribunal dated August 12, 2015. The applicant sought to amend and reactivate his Application in a Request for an Order During Proceedings, filed on February 24, 2016. The reactivation was granted in an Interim Decision dated July 26, 2016 (2016 HRTO 978).

2The Interim Decision directed the parties to file further submissions on the proposed amendments, which the parties have subsequently done.

3The applicant alleges that the discrimination and harassment alleged in his original Application are ongoing, and particularized them in a letter dated March 24, 2016, in response to a Case Assessment Direction. The respondent opposed the amendments (as well as the reactivation) on the basis that they were also the subject matter of several additional grievances.

4The applicant advised that he had withdrawn his grievances, but then subsequently alleged that further incidents happened in the workplace and filed two further grievances. The respondent states that it does not wish to have to defend itself in two related sets of proceedings, and asks that the Tribunal defer the Application to the grievance process.

5In response, the applicant advises that he only filed these two further grievances to put the respondent on notice, and that the "remedy sought" section of the grievances makes it clear that he intends to pursue the grievances in his Application before this Tribunal. Consistent with that position, he has enclosed a notice to his union withdrawing the two most recent grievances.

Decision

6It is clear from the applicant's correspondence that at this time he wishes to avail himself of the Tribunal's process, and not pursue his many (withdrawn) grievances through the grievance process. He appears to be continuing to submit (and then withdraw) grievances for the purpose of putting the respondent on notice or otherwise protecting his rights.

7It is, therefore, not appropriate in this case to defer to the grievance process. Moreover, it is not appropriate to deny the amendments on the basis that they are the subject matter of ongoing grievances. Since the respondent has not submitted any further objection to the amendments, and since it has not yet filed its Response, the applicant's request is granted.

Order

8I make the following orders/directions:

a. The applicant's request to amend his Application, as particularized in his March 24, 2016 email to the Registrar is granted.

b. The Respondent must file its Response (Form 2) to the Application, as amended, within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

c. The applicant is directed to notify the respondent and the Tribunal of any subsequent grievance he may file and whether he wishes to pursue that grievance through the grievance process.

d. In the event that there are new allegations relating to this Application, the applicant is directed to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings, setting out the particulars of the new allegations.

e. The respondent can indicate whether it consents to these allegations forming part of the Application, in which case the Tribunal will only address the request(s) prior to any hearing, if it has concerns with the proposed amendments.

9I am not seized of this matter.