Buenaventura v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre, 2017 HRTO 1377

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: Sophie Martel Date: October 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1377 Indexed as: Buenaventura v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Gloria Buenaventura, Applicant Noel John Hennessy, Paralegal

St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Cheryl Croutch and Bernice Yee, Respondents Brian D. Mulroney, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1144, Intervenor Paul O’Ryan, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to reactivate her Application and set aside an arbitration hearing.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (“The Code”). In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 993, issued on July 27, 2016, the Tribunal deferred the Application due to an ongoing grievance arbitration process.

3The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to reactivate her Application, consolidate Applications and add a party to the Application. She also sought an order directing her immediate reinstatement to her job. In Interim Decision 2016 HRTO 1634, issued on December 19, 2016, the Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the Application because the grievance process was not unduly delayed or unreasonably slow based on the information provided. At that time, the grievance proceedings were ongoing and an arbitration had been scheduled for September 2017. Having denied the request to reactivate, the decision did not deal with the applicant’s other requests.

4In a letter dated September 21, 2017, the applicant’s representative advised that the arbitration hearing scheduled for September 19, 2017 had been cancelled without good reason or written notice. He asked that that the Tribunal set aside the arbitration hearing, that the cancelled hearing not be rescheduled and that the Tribunal reactivate the Application.

5In a letter dated October 2, 2017, the intervenor’s representative advised that the arbitration of September 19, 2017 was cancelled by the Arbitrator’s office due to unforeseen circumstances, that the applicant was advised of the cancellation on September 11 and that the Arbitrator offered October 19, 2017 as a replacement. Furthermore, the parties had agreed to use the October 19 date in mediation with the Arbitrator.

6In a letter dated October 5, 2017, counsel for the respondent advised that the Arbitrator had cancelled the September 19, 2017 due to unforeseen circumstances but that a mediation of the Applicant’s grievances was proceeding with the Arbitrator on October 19, 2017.

7Given the short delay in rescheduling the grievance proceeding from September 19, 2017 to October 19, 2017, I am not satisfied that the grievance process has been unduly delayed or unreasonably slow. It is therefore not appropriate to reactivate this Application at this time. The Tribunal also does not have the power to “set aside” an arbitration hearing, as requested by the applicant. The grievance proceeding is ongoing and the Application should remain deferred until the conclusion of this proceeding.

8The Tribunal directs the applicant’s attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4, which outline the procedure to follow in order to proceed with an Application that has been deferred. A party must file a Request within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

order

9The applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is denied.

10I am not seized of this matter.