Gloria Buenaventura v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 2016 HRTO 1634

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gloria Buenaventura

Applicant

-and-

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Cheryl Croutch and Bernice Yee

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1144

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Date: December 19, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 1634
Indexed as: Buenaventura v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gloria Buenaventura, Applicant Noel John Hennessy, Representative

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Respondent Brian D. Mulroney, Counsel

1This Interim Decision determines the applicant’s request to reactivate her Application, consolidate Applications and add a party to the Application. The applicant also requests an order directing her immediate reinstatement to her job as a cleaner.

REQUEST TO REACTIVATE

2In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 993 issued on July 27, 2016, the Tribunal deferred the Application to the grievance arbitration process.

3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("Request”) seeking to reactivate her Application. She notes that the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) President who was working on her arbitration hearing file is no longer in that role, and advises that the human resources manager has also left her position with the respondent. The applicant submits these individuals would be very important witnesses for her Application and that their departure will impact the applicant’s hearing. The applicant also alleges that no hearing dates have been set for the grievances filed and that the respondent has delayed giving the Union dates to schedule arbitration. She further submits that she is not receiving benefits and has no income.

4Together with her Request the applicant appended a number of materials that appear to be related to the grievance process and to the merits of her Application.

5The respondents filed a response to the Request objecting to the reactivation. They advise that the grievance arbitration proceedings are ongoing and that arbitration is scheduled for September 2017. The respondents provided a copy of the notice of hearing of the grievances together with its response to the Request.

6The Intervenor did not respond to the applicant’s Requests.

7The Request to reactivate the Application is denied. The Tribunal deferred the Application as the grievance process was ongoing and the applicant’s Request is premature. I am not satisfied that there is any basis to reactivate the Application at this time.

8While it is generally the Tribunal’s practice to reactivate applications only upon the completion of other proceeding, as the respondents acknowledge in their response to the Request, the Tribunal may make an exception under certain circumstances. In some cases the Tribunal has reactivated an application when it was not evident that the grievance was still active, or where there was evidence that the grievance process has been unduly delayed or unreasonably slow. See Nash v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, 2012 HRTO 2299, Nieves v. Toronto District School Board, 2013 HRTO 452.

9On the basis of the information provided by the applicant, I am not satisfied that the grievance process has been unduly delayed or unreasonably slow. The applicant alleges that the respondents refused arbitration dates and delayed the proceedings, however the matter is now scheduled and may be moved up in the event of a cancellation.

10I can appreciate the applicant’s frustration at the time required to resolve the grievance process and the financial difficulties she has faced with respect to her loss of employment. However I am not persuaded that reactivating the Application at this time would not lead to concurrent hearings dealing with the same facts and issues and raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

11I agree with the respondents’ submission that the change in Union President and human resources manager is irrelevant for the purposes of the reactivation request. The change in function or role of these individuals is not a basis for reactivation. The applicant may call these individuals as witnesses for her Tribunal hearing and request a summons if required.

12The applicant may wish to renew her request to reactivate the Application when the grievance process concludes and provide confirmation of completion of the proceeding.

13The Tribunal directs the applicant’s 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/.

14In light of my finding on the request to reactivate, I need not deal with the applicant’s other requests. She may renew her requests in the event that the Application is reactivated.