Wallance Lim v. Lorraine Siu, Luviminda (Luvi) Pangasanhan and Yuen-Yee Chow, 2009 HRTO 1885

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Wallance Lim

Applicant

-and-

Lorraine Siu, Luviminda (Luvi) Pangasanhan

and Yuen-Yee Chow

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: November 5, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1885

Indexed as: Lim v. Siu

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") on March 10, 2009 in which he alleges discrimination in the context of employment on the basis of disability, race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. The applicant also alleges reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The respondents filed a Response on August 27, 2009 in which they ask the Tribunal to defer the Application because of an ongoing union grievance proceeding. The respondents identify the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 ("Union"), as an affected party.

3The applicant filed a Reply on October 7, 2009 opposing the request to defer.

REQUEST TO DEFER

4In May of 2008, five grievances were filed on behalf of the applicant. The respondents argue that two of the grievances include allegations of harassment and discrimination, which are also made in the Application. The respondents argue that, as a result the overlapping subject matter, the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance proceedings.

5In his Reply, the applicant does not appear to deny that there is an overlap in the subject matter of the two proceedings. Rather, he argues that the employer and the Union have not taken appropriate steps to address the grievances and that it would be unfair to defer the Application in the circumstances.

6The 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.

7I note that the grievances were filed almost one and a half years ago. Neither party has specifically advised the Tribunal of the status of the grievance proceedings, although the applicant claims that he has not yet had any opportunity to meet with the employer to discuss the grievances.

8In the circumstances, it is appropriate to seek submissions from the parties and the Union on the status of the grievances before determining the Request for Deferral.

9The Union, as an affected party, has been provided with a copy of the Application and the Response. The Union has not filed any submissions regarding the Request to Defer and has not communicated with the Tribunal.

10Within two weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the Union and the respondents shall advise the Tribunal and the other parties in writing of the status of the grievance proceeding and the date (if any) on which the grievances are scheduled to be heard.

11Within three weeks of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant may respond to the information provided by Union and the respondents. The applicant's submissions should be in writing, delivered to the Tribunal, the respondents and the Union and they should address the status of the grievance proceeding and the date (if any) on which the grievances are scheduled to be heard.

12The Registrar will deliver a copy of the Reply and this Interim Decision to the Union.

13I am not seized of this matter.