Giron v. Verdi, 2009 HRTO 1524

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carlos Giron

Applicant

-and-

Verdi Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: September 22, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1524 Indexed as: Giron v. Verdi

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on April 27, 2009, alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2On July 2, 2009, the respondent filed a Response in which it requested that the Application be deferred because the subject matter is identical to the subject matter of a grievance now at the arbitration stage. The union representing the applicant in that arbitration has filed a Request to Intervene in this Application, and has stated in its materials that the facts giving rise to the grievance are the same facts as those that form the basis for the Application. Accordingly, the union requests that the Tribunal not deal with the Application or, alternatively, defer it until the grievance arbitration proceeding is completed.

3The applicant was invited to address the respondent's request to defer. He has not filed any submissions on the issue, nor filed a Reply to the Response, and the time for doing so has passed.

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 and the Code, arising out of the same facts and allegations as set out in this Application.

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 grievance process is ongoing.

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 with Rule 19, that the Tribunal proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.

10At this time, there is no need to address the union's Request to Intervene.

11I am not seized of this matter.