Hatton v. Pollock, 2009 HRTO 2211

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jim Hatton

Applicant

-and-

John Pollock

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: December 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2211

Indexed as: Hatton v. Pollack

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Jim Hatton, Applicant ) On his own behalf

John Pollack, Respondent ) Geoff Jeffery, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees , ) Risa Pancer, Counsel

Intervenor )

Reasons for Decision

1On November 9, 2009, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 1859, which sought submissions on whether the Application should be deferred because of an ongoing grievance that deals with the same issues as those raised in the Application.

2Submissions have been received from the respondent and CUPE Local 4705 ("the union"). No submissions were received from the applicant. The respondent and the union oppose deferral. The respondent also seeks to have the Application dismissed on the grounds that it does not disclose facts which, even if proven to be true, would amount to an infringement of the applicant's Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 protected rights. As such, the respondent argues that the applicant has not established a "prima facie" case.

3The respondent acknowledges that the fact that there is an ongoing grievance that concerns the same issues as those raised in the Application would support a deferral. However, the respondent asks that the Application not be deferred because in the respondent's view, "the Application is an attempt by the Applicant to challenge the Respondent's authority as his supervisor and his efforts to manage the Applicant's performance".

4The union indicated that it opposes deferral, but did not give any reasons and did not make any submissions in support of deferral.

5In my view, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. The facts and issues raised in the grievance are largely the same as those raised in the Application. In my view, the concerns raised by the respondent are not sufficient to cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

6Since the matter is deferred, it is not necessary to deal with the other issues raised by the respondent, including the question of whether the applicant has established a prima facie case. Those issues may be addressed if the applicant wishes to pursue the Application after the grievance has been dealt with.

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). I am not seized of this matter.