Hudecki v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2009 HRTO 612

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Timothy Hudecki Applicant

-and-

Thames Valley District School Board and Beth Strong Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: May 11, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 612 Indexed as: Hudecki v. Thames Valley District School Board

1This is an Application filed on April 15, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the ground of disability. The Application was accompanied by a Request to Expedite Proceedings. This Interim Decision deals with the Request to Expedite as well as the deferral of the Application pending completion of grievance proceedings.

REQUEST TO EXPEDITE

2The reasons given in support of the Request to Expedite are the financial, mental and familial hardship that has resulted from the termination of employment. In responding to the Request to Expedite, the respondent Thames Valley District School Board (the Board) refers to a grievance arising out the termination of employment that is scheduled for mediation on July 21, 2009. The respondent states that the Board and the applicant’s union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local Union 4222 (the Union), have a long standing arrangement to use the services of an experienced mediator who has acted in that capacity between the parties on numerous occasions. Furthermore, the Board and the Union have agreed to a named arbitrator in the event that an arbitration hearing is required.

3The Board expresses a concern that expediting the Tribunal’s proceeding will in effect undermine the process that the parties have already initiated for resolving the issues relating to the applicant’s termination from employment.

4In Weerawardane v. 2152458 Ontario Ltd., 2008 HRTO 53, at para. 9 the Tribunal held that, for a request to expedite to be granted, the applicant must demonstrate that the circumstances are truly urgent, requiring the resolution of the human rights dispute in a particularly rapid manner as compared with the time required to complete the Tribunal’s regular process.

5Although the Tribunal acknowledges the hardship that the applicant describes, the circumstances are not so particularly urgent as to distinguish this Application from other cases before the Tribunal. Furthermore, given the grievance process underway for resolving the issues raised by the Application, and the Tribunal’s decision to defer to that process, expedition of the Application is not appropriate.

6The Request to Expedite is denied.

DEFERRAL PENDING COMPLETION OF GRIEVANCE PROCEEDING

7The applicant is represented in his employment relations by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 4222 (the Union), which has filed a grievance on his behalf contesting the termination of employment. The employer and the union have arranged for a meeting with a mediator on July 21, 2009. The union submits that it would be appropriate to defer the consideration of this Application by the Tribunal pending resolution of the grievance.

8The 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). The 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.

9In this case, the facts and issues raised by the Application are also the subject of an ongoing grievance. There are no circumstances that warrant a departure from the Tribunal’s normal approach to deferral. The Tribunal therefore orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the grievance has been concluded.

10I am not seized of this matter.