HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gregory Monck
Applicant
-and-
Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited and Maurice Graham
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: Monck v. Ford Motor Company
1This Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges, among other things, that the respondent employer terminated the applicant’s employment because he was absent from work caring for his terminally ill wife and that the respondents’ actions violated his rights under the Code.
2In their Response, the respondents submit that the facts of the Application are part of a grievance filed on the applicant’s behalf by his trade union, the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (“CAW”), to which notice of this Application has been sent. They submit that the grievance process is still underway and that the Application ought to be deferred pending completion of the grievance and arbitration process. A copy of a December 9, 2008 grievance purporting to be the applicant’s grievance is attached to the Response.
3The 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.
4The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (available on our website) provide that before a decision on deferral is made, the parties, and any identified union or affected party, must be given notice of the deferral issue and an opportunity to make submissions.
5The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents and CAW and file with the Tribunal by no later than May 19, 2009 his submissions on whether this Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of his grievance or grievances. The respondents and CAW are directed to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal their respective Responses on whether this Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant’s grievance or grievances by May 26, 2009. The Tribunal will then determine whether it is appropriate to defer this Application until such time as any grievance(s) based on the same facts and issues as the Application are concluded.
6It does not appear that the Tribunal sent the CAW a copy of the Response. A copy is therefore provided along with this Interim Decision.
7I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 11^th^ day of May, 2009.
“Signed By”
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair