Gary Crooker v. U.S. Steel Canada Inc., 2010 HRTO 1006

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gary Crooker Applicant

-and-

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: May 6, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1006 Indexed as: Crooker v. U.S. Steel Canada

Reasons for Decision

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 September 17, 2009. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. On February 18, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under Rule 14.2 of its Rules of Procedure, as it appears that the applicant had filed a grievance dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The applicant, and United Steelworkers of America Local 8782, which had been named by the applicant as a party which might be affected by this proceeding, were invited to make written submissions on why the Application should or should not be deferred.

2Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

3The 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).

4Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

5Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer having regard to the nature and status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

6It appears from the responses to the Notice that due to a lock-out since August 3, 2009, there is no likelihood that the grievance will be dealt with in the foreseeable future. It is not plain and obvious that a deferral is appropriate in this case. The respondent will be served with the Application.

7I am not seized of this matter.