Christopher Pearson v. City of Oshawa, Animal Services, Angela Brodhagen, Amanda MacIntyre, Carri Chillingworth, and Kathy Noordman, 2009 HRTO 303

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Pearson

Applicant

-and-

City of Oshawa, Animal Services, Angela Brodhagen, Amanda MacIntyre, Carri Chillingworth, and Kathy Noordman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: March 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 303

Indexed as: Pearson v. Oshawa (City)

1In his Application the applicant responded “no” to the question about whether the facts of his Application were part of another proceeding that is underway. It is not clear whether this response was an error because he subsequently identifies that the other proceeding is a union grievance and his union as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 251 (Inside Workers) (“CUPE”). No grievance document was attached to his Application.

2The City of Oshawa’s Response states there is no grievance. However, the Responses from the four individual respondents all indicate that there is a union grievance filed by CUPE. Further, CUPE has filed a Request to Intervene and notes that a grievance has been filed on behalf of the applicant.

3If a grievance (or grievances) exists, the Tribunal will determine whether it is appropriate to defer this Application until such time as the grievance is concluded. Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure gives the Tribunal the authority to defer consideration of an application on its own initiative, as well as at the request of one of the parties.

4The 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 particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

5The Rules provide that before a decision on deferral is made, the parties, and any identified union or affected party must be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions. The applicant has filed a Request for Order asking to amend his Application to, among other things, add his supervisor, Kathy Duncan, as a respondent. In light of this request, it is appropriate to treat Ms Duncan as an affected party.

6Accordingly, the Registrar will provide both Ms Duncan and CUPE (as the identified union) with a copy of this Interim Decision and an opportunity to make submissions.

7The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents, Kathy Duncan and CUPE and file with the Tribunal by March 27, 2009, a copy of any grievance or grievances filed on his behalf concerning the issues raised in his Application, as well as his submissions on the issue of whether this Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of his grievance or grievances.

8The respondents, Kathy Duncan and CUPE are directed to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal their respective responses by April 3, 2009.

9The Tribunal is aware that, in addition to the outstanding Request for Order from the Applicant, there is a Request to Intervene from CUPE, and a request to dismiss the Application under s.45.1 of the Code from the four individual respondents. Where appropriate, these will be addressed in the Tribunal’s decision on deferral.

10I am not seized of this matter.