Carlos Vidreiro v. Region of Peel, Ben Addley, John Austin, Peter Engler and Peter Dundas, 2009 HRTO 1462

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carlos Vidreiro Applicant

-and-

Region of Peel, Ben Addley, John Austin, Peter Engler and Peter Dundas Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: September 11, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1462 Indexed as: Vidreiro v. Peel (Region)

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on July 20, 2009, alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability and association with a person identified by a protected ground contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

2On August 19, 2009, the Tribunal sent Notice of the Application to the respondents and the applicant’s union. The Tribunal also issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, inviting all parties and the union to make submissions regarding deferral pending the completion of a related proceeding. Submissions were due on or about September 8, 2009. Counsel for the Region of Peel and three of the four personal respondents filed submissions on August 28, 2009. No submissions have been received from the remaining personal respondent, the applicant or the union and the deadline has now passed.

DECISION

3The 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.

4The 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.

5In 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.

6The applicant has filed a grievance alleging a violation of the collective agreement and the Code, arising out of the same facts and allegations as set out in this Application. Counsel for some of the respondents has indicated that a mediation was scheduled for September 8, 2009 and arbitration dates will be set should the mediation fail to settle the issues.

7In 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 grievance process is ongoing.

8The 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.

9I am not seized of this matter.