Maximiliaan van Woudenberg v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2016 HRTO 1577

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maximiliaan van Woudenberg

Applicant

-and-

Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Canada At Work, Sheik Azaad, Cathi Berge, Lee Easton, Hasan Malik, Ryan Piper, Stephanie Samboo, Paula Seely and Jeff Zabudsky

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: December 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1577

Indexed as: van Woudenberg v. Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning

APPEARANCES

Maximiliaan van Woundenberg, Applicant

Cecil Norman, Representative

Sheridan College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Respondent

Canada At Work, Sheik Azaad, Cathi Berge, Lee Easton, Hasan Malik, Ryan Piper, Stephanie Samboo, Paula Seely and Jeff Zabudsky, Respondents

Patricia Murray, Counsel

Self-represented

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Affected Party

Adrienne Lang, Counsel

1This Interim Decision determines the applicant’s request to reactivate his deferred Application.

REASONS

2The Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The parties did not oppose the proposed deferral and the Tribunal deferred the Application on November 26, 2015 pending the completion of grievance proceedings.

3The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to reactivate the Application on the basis that the grievance process has concluded. The applicant submits that an arbitrator’s decision dated August 29, 2016 concluded the grievance process. He advises that he wishes to proceed with the Application as against the personal respondents.

4The organizational respondent filed a response to the Request objecting to the reactivation. It advises that the arbitration proceedings related to the applicant’s five grievances have not been completed. Two of the grievances dealing with the applicant’s claims of harassment, discrimination, bullying and reprisal were scheduled to be continued on October 26, 2016 and November 16, 2016 and may require additional hearing days if not concluded on those dates. The respondent provided a copy of the notice of hearing with regard to those grievances together with its response to the Request.

5The Request to reactivate the Application is denied. The Tribunal deferred the Application as the grievance process was ongoing and it would appear that the applicant’s Request is premature. I am not satisfied that there is any basis to reactivate the Application at this time. As the hearing dates for the two grievances referenced by the respondent have now passed, if the grievance process has since concluded, the applicant may wish to renew his Request and provide confirmation of completion of the proceeding.

6The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. Where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Forms can be found on its website at www.sjto.gov.on.ca/hrto/.

7I am not seized.

ORDER

8The applicant’s Request to reactivate the Application is denied.