Declare v. Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co., 2016 HRTO 460

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Declare

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co; Dave Buntoin; Sean Smith; and Marilyn Johnson

Respondents

-and-

Teamsters Local 847

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: April 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 460

Indexed as: Declare v. Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeffrey Declare, Applicant Self-represented

Canadian Linen and Uniform Service Co; Dave Buntoin; Sean Smith; Marilyn Johnson, Respondents Daniel l. Leone, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to re-activate his deferred Application, which was filed on March 3, 2015, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). By Interim Decision dated May 11, 2015, the Application was deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

2On February 12, 2016, the Registrar directed the applicant to update the Tribunal on the status of the grievance by March 12, 2016.

3On March 5, 2016, the applicant sent an email to the Registrar which indicated that an arbitrator had issued a decision on the grievance. Attached to this email were a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the applicant, the respondent and the Union which indicated that the parties to that Agreement had agreed that Arbitrator Brown would canvass all the issues raised in this Application; and the decision of Arbitrator Brown in which he confirms that the parties to the arbitration conferred on him the jurisdiction to consider all of the matters raised in this Application. At the end of this email, the applicant asked whether the Tribunal would proceed with the Application under the circumstances.

4The respondents have taken the position that the Tribunal has no basis to proceed with this Application given the fact that Arbitrator Brown has rendered a decision on the issues that were raised in this Application.

5In light of the fact that the respondents have not stated that they are opposed reactivation, and it would appear that the grievance process is now concluded, the Tribunal grants the applicant’s request to reactivate.

6As a result of the Arbitrator’s decision the issue as to whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code has now arisen. As such, I direct the Registrar to schedule a preliminary hearing to determine this issue.

7Section 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.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is granted; and,

b. The Tribunal will schedule a half-day preliminary hearing by conference call to determine whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part under section 45.1 of the Code.