Law v. Organization Solution, 2009 HRTO 1323

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Kevin Law Applicant

-and-

Organizational Solution Inc. and Kathryn Sinden Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: August 26, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1323 Indexed as: Law v. Organization Solution

1Kevin Law, the applicant, filed his Application on June 3, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the grounds of disability. More specifically, the Application alleges that Organizational Solution Inc., the organizational respondent, and its manager, Kathryn Sinden, the personal respondent, were responsible for denying the applicant benefits when he was absent from work due to stress. The Application identifies Expertech, the applicant’s employer and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the applicant’s union, as affected parties.

2This interim decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of another proceeding. The Application states that the facts of the Application are part of another ongoing proceeding, namely a union grievance. The Application is accompanied by copies of four related grievances filed by the applicant with his union.

3On July 14, 2009 the Tribunal wrote to the parties and to the applicant’s employer and union indicating that the Tribunal may defer the consideration of the Application pending the outcome of the applicant’s grievances, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal invited the parties as well as the applicant’s employer and union to make submissions as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred. Submissions were to be delivered to the other parties and filed with the Tribunal no later than 14 days from July 31, 2009. To date, the Tribunal has received no submissions.

Decision

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

5I have reviewed the applicant’s grievances, and I am satisfied that they are based on the same facts and issues as raised by the Application. It is true that the grievances do not explicitly allege that the applicant was subject to discriminatory treatment but they do focus on claims that the applicant was being denied benefits and the respondents did not accept his medical evidence to explain his absences. These are the central allegations in the Application. I am also satisfied that the grievances, which predate the Application, (they are all dated December 12, 2008) are still in progress as they indicate that only the Stage I process has been completed.

6In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

7Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

8I am not seized of this matter.