Bacas v. Agropur Division Natrel, 2009 HRTO 127

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Elias Bacas

Applicant

-and-

Agropur Division Natrel

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: February 4, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 127 Indexed as: Bacas v. Agropur Division Natrel

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on December 15, 2008 alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of disability and age. The essence of the Application is that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant’s disability and harassed him on the basis of age. He alleges that the termination of his employment was improper.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request by the applicant to expedite these proceedings pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) and a request by the Tribunal for submissions as to whether the Application should be deferred pursuant to Rule 14.1 because there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

3Rule 21.1 provides an applicant may request “that the Tribunal deal with an Application on an expedited basis in circumstances which require an urgent resolution of the issues in dispute”.

4In support of his Request to Expedite, the applicant stated that he is 63 years old and has physical restrictions that prevent him from seeking other employment. Further, the applicant indicated that he and his family are prejudiced if he cannot find employment.

5The respondent filed a Response to the Request to Expedite. The respondent opposes the applicant’s Request, questioning the urgency of the matter. The respondent submits that the applicant has filed a grievance in relation to the termination of his employment and has received a lump sum severance payment.

6To be successful, a Request to Expedite must describe urgent circumstances that may affect the fair and just resolution of the merits of the application and the harm that would result if the request is denied. In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at paragraph 9, the Tribunal explained:

For a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.

7The Request to Expedite is denied. I find there are no particular indications of urgency in this case to justify the expedition of the matter. Further, the applicant has not provided any explanation as to what potential harm would require the resolution of the matter in a particularly rapid manner as compared to the Tribunal’s already expeditious process.

DEFERRAL

8According to Rule 14.1, the Tribunal may “defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative, at the request of an Applicant under Rule 7, or at the request of any party.”

9Pursuant to Rule 14.2, where the Tribunal intends to defer consideration of an application, it must first give the parties, any identified trade union or occupational or professional organization and any identified affected persons, notice of its intention to consider deferral of the application as well as an opportunity to make submissions.

10The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

11The parties and the Teamsters Local Union 647 (“union”) are invited to make written submissions regarding whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of this Application until such time as the grievance is resolved. They may do so according to the following schedule:

(a) the respondent and the union, by February 16, 2009;

(b) the applicant, by March 2, 2009; and

(c) the respondent and the union may reply to any new issues raised in the applicant's submissions by March 9, 2009.

12The Registrar will provide a copy of the Application and this Interim Decision to the union.

13I am not seized of this matter.