HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Teresa Dickson
Applicant
-and-
Quinte Healthcare Corporation
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Dickson v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation
1In Interim Decision dated June 1, 2016, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending conclusion of the grievance process, which included the grievance arbitration process. See Dickson v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation, 2016 HRTO 750 at para. 12.
2The applicant filed a Form 9, Request to Withdraw an Application (“Request to Withdraw”) against UNIFOR, the union which represents her in the workplace. At the same time, she also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) requesting that her Application be re-activated given her Request to Withdraw against UNIFOR.
3UNIFOR has not filed a response to the Request to Withdraw or the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.
4Quinte Healthcare Corporation (“Quinte”) has filed a Response to the RFOP. It submits that the Request to Withdraw has no bearing or impact on the grievance arbitration process. The grievances, upon which the deferral was based, remain active. It submits that the Application should continue to be deferred until the grievance processes have been concluded.
analysis
5As there is no opposition to the Request to Withdraw, it is granted. UNIFOR is removed as a respondent and the style of cause is amended accordingly.
6I agree with Quinte that the Request to Withdraw has no bearing or impact on the grievance arbitration process. As long as the grievances remain outstanding, the Application will continue to be deferred until the grievance process, including the grievance arbitration process, has concluded. The applicant’s request to re-activate, as set out in her RFOP, is denied.
7Again, the Tribunal reminds the parties that where a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred, the party must file a RFOP in accordance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. As set out in para. 13 of the Interim Decision, Quinte’s position that the doctor should be a respondent will be addressed if the Application is re-activated.
8I am not seized with this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair

