Irene Petrunti v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2016 HRTO 912

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Irene Petrunti Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: July 11, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 912 Indexed as: Petrunti v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Irene Petrunti, Applicant Self-represented

Ontario (Community and Social Services), Respondent Susan Munn, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses whether this deferred Application should be reactivated prior to the completion of a related grievance arbitration proceeding.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged discrimination because of disability, association and reprisal sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that she has been forced to work in a poisoned work environment and has been denied the chance to advance in her career.

3Prior to filing her Application, the applicant filed a grievance with her union, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (“OPSEU”). The Tribunal determined that this Application should be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process by Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 108.

4The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to reactivate her Application even though the grievance process is ongoing. The respondent opposes this Request.

DECISION AND ANALYSIS

5The applicant opposed deferring her Application on the basis that there were differences between the substance of the grievances and her Application. In addition, she opposed deferral on the basis that she continued to experience ongoing problems in the workplace. Her Request to reactivate is likewise based on the assertion that she continues to experience problems.

6The arbtitration of the grievances commenced on May 27, 2016. Further hearing dates are scheduled in November, December and January. Even if the Tribunal were to reactivate this matter, the Tribunal would not be scheduling dates in November, which is less than four months from now.

7In any event, the applicant has provided no basis upon which the Tribunal might exercise its discretion to reactivate even though an important condition for reactivation (namely, the conclusion of the grievance process) has not been met.

ORDER

8The Request for reactivation is denied.