0042-89; 0050-90; 0051-90; 0052-90; 0053-90; 0054-90; 0057-90; 0064-90; 0066-90: Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. Cornwall GeneralHospital, Respondent; Ontario Nurses'Association, Applicant v. St. Joseph's General Hospital, Respondent; Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. Almonte General Hospital, Respondent; Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. Carleton Place & District Memorial Hospital, Respondent; Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. Temiskaming Hospital, Respondent; Belleville General Hospital, Applicant v. Ontario Nurses' Association, Respondent; York Finch General Hospital, Applicant v. Ontario Nurses' Association, Respondent; Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. Belleville General Hospital, Respondent; Ontario Nurses' Association, Applicant v. St. Joseph's General Hospital Parry Sound, Respondent
Before : Patricia Hughes, Alternate Chair: Donald Dudar and Bruce Budd, Members
Cite As: Cornwall General Hospital (1991), 2. P.E.R. 22
Practice and Procedure - Adjournments
By agreement, the parties in several cases before the Tribunal requested that the Tribunal adjourn the applications until the Tribunal had determined the Women's College Hospital case and then re- list the applications before the panel hearing Women's College Hospital. The parties also advised the Tribunal oftheiragreementto complete any outstanding pleadings at the timeoftherelistingoftheapplication. The Tribunal granted the adjournments subject to the requirement that the Applicant in each case inform the Tribunal within thirty days of the release of reasons for decision in Women's College Hospital of its intention to proceed with the case or not. It declined to direct that the applications be listed before the Women's College Hospital panelandheldthatthequestionofthe completionofoutstandingpleadings was more properly for the panel assigned to hear the case.
Pratique et procedure - Ajournements
Les parties à plusieurs instances devant le Tribunal se sont entendues pour lui demander ce qui suit: ajourner leurs requêtes jusqu'à ce qu'il ait statué sur l'affaire du Women's College Hospital; et, inscrire les requêtes au rôle d'audience du comité chargé d'entendre l'affaire du Women's College Hospital. Les partiesont également aviséleTribunalqu'elless'étiaient entenduespour se réserverledroit d' exécutertout acte de procédure inachevé au moment de la nouvelle inscription de leur requête. Le Tribunal a accueilli les demandes d'ajournement à la condition suivante: le requérant, dans chaque cause, devra informer le Tribunal, dans les trente jours qui suivent la publication des raisons motivant la décision prise dans l'affaire du Women's College Hospital, de son intention de donner suite ou non a sa requête. Il a refusé d'ordonnerque lesrequêtessoient inscritesaurôle d'audienceducomitéqia entendu1'affairedu Women's College Hospital et a conclu que la question relative à l'exécution des actes de procédure devait plutôt être tranchée par le comité chargé d'entendre l'affaire.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, MAY 2, 1990
- By letter dated April 23, 1990, in regard to each of the applications listed above, the parties on agreement requestedadjournment "pendingthe determinationofthe Women College Hospital et al case" (see Women's College Hospital, Tribunal File Numbers 0008-89 and 0011-89) and further requested
that the application be listed before the panel of the Tribunal seized with the Women's College cases, supra.. The parties also advised the Tribunal of their agreement to "reserve the right to complete any outstanding pleadings or documentation required by the Rules of Practice at the time of the relisting of the relevant applications for hearing before the Tribunal".
2 We note that File Number 0042-89 was previously adjourned sine die on agreement (by letter from theapplicantthereindatedJanuary30,1990andtheRegistrar'sletterdatedFebruary1,1990). Therefore, we deal no further with that file. Our reference to "applications" below encompasses all the remaining applications which are the subject of the parties' requests.
3 In a decision datedDecember19,1989,thepanelhearingthe Women's College cases, supra, ruled that certain applications would be heard together with Women's College, supra, and adjourned sine die certain other applications with which they would remain seized. They also made the following determination:
- Subsequent Applications filed with the Tribunal concerning matters similar to those raised in the Applications listed in paragraph 2 of this Ruling, will be dealt with by the Tribunal on an individual basis.
The applications before us are "subsequent applications . . . concerning matters similar to those raised in the [applications before the Women's College panel]".
1The parties evidently anticipate that the decision(s) in the Women's College cases, supra, may assist theminresolvingtheirowndisputes. Accordingly, they wish to suspend their proceedings until the relevant issues in the Women's College cases, supra, have been decided. No doubt, the parties will need some time to decidethe impactofthe decisions in those cases on their own cases and to decidehowtheyor any oneofthemwishestoproceed. At thesametime,weareconcernedinlightofthepurposeandmandatory posting dates of the Act that the Tribunal be able to schedule cases as promptly as possible and manage its own resources as efficiently as possible and therefore believe there should be some limit on that period of assessment.
2We believe that thirty days is a period which protects both the parties' interests and the Tribunal's concerns. To be clear, all the applicant is required to do within the thirty days is to inform the Registrar (ultimately in writing) whether it wishes to proceed with the application, withdraw it or adjourn it. The Tribunal's normal procedures will then follow. No party will be required to complete any pleadings or documentationwithinthistimeperiod;anyoutstandingpleadings,or issuesofamendment,shouldtheyarise, can be dealt with subsequently after dates are scheduled for hearing.
3By way of comparison, we note that under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, respondents are expected to respond comprehensivelyto whatare oftendetailedapplications,withintwenty-onedaysofbeingserved by the application; and that parties wishing to appeal decisions to an Ontario appellate court are subject to time periods ranging from seven to thirty days, depending on the nature of the decision being appealed from and whether leave to appeal is required. Our requirement imposes nothing so onerous.
4This condition does not prejudice any party but it does ensure that the respondent and the Tribunal are aware of the state of these matters within a reasonable period following the release of the reasons for the decision in Women's College Hospital, supra. On the other hand, it ensures that the applicant has thirty days in which to consider its options before the respondent can effectively move to have the application dismissed. Furthermore, should the decisions in the Women's College cases prompt the partiestotry to settle their case themselves,theyare freetoseek anadjournment,as areanypartiesbefore the Tribunal who are engaged in settlement discussions. They are subject to the same freedoms and limitations asanypartieswho have invokedthe resourcesofthe Tribunaltohelp themresolve their dispute.
5The Tribunal therefore grants the parties' request to adjourn these applications "pending the determination" in the Women's College cases. We direct that the applicant in each of these applications advisethe Registrarofthe Tribunalwithinthirtycalendardays of the release of the reasons forthe decision in the Women's College cases of its intention to proceed with the application or not.
6Shouldanyoftheseapplicationsberelistedforhearing,itwillbescheduledinthenormalcourse. We decline to directthatanyoftheseapplications be scheduledbeforethe panelhearingthe Women's College Hospital cases.
7The question of completion of outstanding pleadings or documentation in any of these applications is more properly a question for the panel assigned to hear the case. We note that there is agreement by the parties to any such completion.
8Accordingly, these applications are adjourned in accordance with the above provisions.
DECISION OF MEMBER, BRUCE BUDD, MAY 1, 1990
1 While I concur with the majority on the question of granting the parties' request to adjourn and on the question of completion of any outstanding pleadings, I dissent from their decision to impose a deadline to respond within thirty days of the release of the final Women's College decisions.
2 The legislation is designed to encourage a self managed process by the parties. In its experience to date, the Tribunalhasnotencounteredunnecessarydelayby the parties who areaware oftheir obligations under the Act. I note that the panel in Women's College Hospital did not see the need to set a time limit and that in the cases before this panelthe partiesdid notask for,nor were they consulted on, such a limit. Thus, a deadline is an unnecessary, administrative restriction on the parties which will be counter productive.
3 Furthermore, were a time limit advisable, it should be long enough to permit the parties to retain counsel, to adequately consult internally, with their counsel and with other members in their respective communities, but most importantly, to attempt to negotiate a settlement based on their particular circumstances. In these cases, given that there will be threeWomen's College Hospital decisions that may becomplex in several areas,possiblywithdifferent factsituations,thirtydays isclearlyinadequateto allow for and encourage a negotiated settlement between the parties.
4 Lastly, from an administrative perspective, such a time limit will lead to the premature relisting of cases which are ultimately adjourned after the parties reach a voluntary settlement. This can only result in the unnecessary scheduling of cases and panels with unintended inefficiencies.
5 For the above reasons, I would not impose an arbitrary deadline on the parties.