Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Phillip Johnson Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur Date: November 2, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1450 Indexed as: Johnson v. Toronto (City)
APPEARANCES
Phillip Johnson, Applicant Self-represented
City of Toronto, Respondent Michael Marotsh, Counsel
Introduction
1The applicant has been employed as a custodian with the Department of Parks, Forestry and Recreation of the City of Toronto (“the respondent”) since 2001. He alleges that he experienced discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race between 2008 and 2012.
2The applicant filed an application on October 12, 2012 alleging that the respondent violated s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c.H.19, as amended (“the Code”).
3The applicant commenced an unpaid leave of absence around October 31, 2012 and has not returned to the workplace.
4As an employee of the respondent, the applicant is represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 (“the Union”). In January 2013, the Union filed a grievance on behalf of the applicant alleging that the respondent had not maintained a “harassment and discrimination free workplace”.
5On April 14, 2013, the Application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance procedure.
6The applicant’s grievance was referred to arbitration and heard by Arbitrator David Starkman (“the Arbitrator”) who issued a final decision (“the arbitration decision”) dated December 5, 2016 denying the grievance. The Arbitrator found that there had been no violation of the collective agreement or the Code.
7On February 23, 2017, the applicant made a request to reactivate the Application. The respondent opposed the reactivation of the Application and requested that the Application be dismissed in accordance with section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
8A preliminary hearing was scheduled to deal with the matter. I heard the parties’ submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Application has been appropriately dealt with by the arbitral proceeding and the Application is dismissed in accordance with [section 45.1](