Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jonathan Guider Applicant
-and-
Craigwood Youth Services, Graham Ashbourne, Kathryn Hogan, Lothar Liehman, and Sherri Whitman Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 31, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1363 Indexed as: Guider v. Craigwood Youth Services
1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on March 30, 2009, alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment and membership in vocational associations on the basis of disability, sex, and family status contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On May 14, 2009, the Tribunal sent the Application and a Notice of Intent to Defer to the respondent and the applicant’s union and the Tribunal invited the parties and the union to make submissions regarding the issue of deferral. Submissions were due on or about May 28, 2009; however, none were received from either the applicant or the union.
3The respondent filed submissions on May 28, 2009, and provided copies of the grievance form and arbitration materials. The respondent submits that the allegations contained in the present Application are also the subject of the ongoing arbitration.
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.
5The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues: see Krieger v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 183 and Loranger v. Customs and Immigration Union, 2008 HRTO 432.
6In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement: see Blackman v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 970 citing Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.
7The applicant has filed a grievance alleging a violation of the collective agreement between the parties, arising out of the same facts and allegations as set out in this Application. The grievance arbitration has begun and is scheduled to continue in October of this year.
8In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration. The two proceedings raise similar facts and issues and involve the same parties. The arbitration has commenced and will be continuing in a few months’ time. The respondent’s submissions indicate that the parties have expended considerable time and resources in preparing for the arbitration.
9The Tribunal orders that this Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance to Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 31st day of August, 2009.
“Signed by”
___________________________________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair