Weeden v. Sobeys Inc., 2016 HRTO 978

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Weeden Applicant

-and-

Sobeys Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: July 26, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 978 Indexed as: Weeden v. Sobeys Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Weeden, Applicant Self-represented

Sobeys Inc., Respondent Mathias Link, Counsel

Background

1This Application was deferred by way of letter from the Tribunal dated August 12, 2015. The applicant sought to amend and reactivate his Application in a Request for an Order During Proceedings, filed on February 24, 2016. The respondent opposes this Request on the basis that the subject matter of the proposed amendments are addressed in additional grievances.

2The applicant has written to the Tribunal to indicate that he has since withdrawn all grievances relating to the proposed amendments. He indicated he was attaching a document in which he purported to do this, but this electronic document does not appear in the applicant’s submissions.

Decision

Reactivation

3It would appear to be common ground between the parties that the applicant has withdrawn the grievances on which the deferral of his original Application was based. However, the respondent opposes reactivation on the basis that there are other grievances, which it believes to be ongoing. Since these grievances address the same subject-matter as the proposed amendments to the Application, it submits the Tribunal should continue to defer this Application.

4The Tribunal, however, cannot make determinations on requests for order on deferred Applications. That is, the Tribunal cannot rule on the applicant’s request to amend his Application until it is reactivated. It cannot base a decision to continue deferring the Application on a request on which it has not ruled.

5There is no proper basis for continuing to defer this Application. The reactivation request is, accordingly, granted.

Amendments

6The applicant has proposed amendments to his Application to cover the period after his Application was filed. The specific wording of these amendments is set out in an attachment to an email to the Registrar, dated March 24, 2016. The respondent does not appear to oppose these amendments, although, as noted above, its submissions focus on whether these amendments are the subject of ongoing grievances.

7The respondent may file further submissions on the proposed amendments by August 10, 2016. If it does not oppose the amendments, as set out in the March 24, 2016 email, the amendments will be granted and the Respondent will be permitted to file an amended Response by September 1, 2016.

Further Deferral

8It would appear that the respondent’s request to further defer this matter to the applicant’s ongoing grievances may be moot in light of the applicant’s position that these grievances have also been withdrawn. The applicant is directed to provide the Tribunal and respondent with a copy of the correspondence with his union to that effect.

9If, in fact, these grievances have not been withdrawn, the parties may make submissions on deferral by September 1, 2016.

Order

10In sum, I have made the following orders/directions:

a. This Application is reactivated.

b. The respondent may file further submissions by August 10, 2016 with respect to the applicant’s request to amend his Application, as set out in the March 24, 2016 email to the Registrar. If it does not oppose the amendments by that date, they will be granted.

c. In the event that the Application is amended as set out above, the Respondent will be permitted to file an amended Response by September 1, 2016.

d. The applicant is directed to provide the respondent and the Tribunal with a copy of the letter to his union withdrawing his outstanding grievances, which relate to the subject matter of the proposed amendments.

e. If necessary, the parties may make submissions on whether the amended Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of any ongoing grievances.

11I am not seized of this matter.