Guy Damude v. Pilkington Glass of Canada and Tracy Ellinger, 2010 HRTO 1482

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Guy Damude

Applicant

-and-

Pilkington Glass of Canada and Tracy Ellinger

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: July 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1482

Indexed as: Damude v. Pilkington Glass of Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Pilkington Glass of Canada and ) Geneviève Debané, Counsel Tracy Ellinger, Respondents )

United Steelworkers Local 252G ) Dale Hogg, Representative

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 29, 2010, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability.

3In section 14 of the Application, the applicant acknowledged that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, but did not request that the Tribunal defer his Application until the grievance proceeding is completed. He attached two grievances from December 2009 to his Application.

4On May 18, 2010, the Tribunal’s Registrar sent the parties and the applicant’s union, United Steelworkers Local 252G, a letter which requested written submissions on the issue of deferral.

5The respondents filed submissions on May 31, 2010, which requested that the Tribunal defer the Application because the grievances have reached step 4 of the grievance process, and the issues set out in the Application and the grievances are identical.

6The union filed submissions on June 24, 2010, which opposed the deferral of the Application on the basis that it informed the corporate respondent on June 14 that it was putting the grievances in abeyance until the applicant’s case has been heard by this Tribunal. The union attached a copy of the letter that it sent to the corporate respondent.

7Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules provides that the 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. The Tribunal will 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.

8Deferral 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: Bhagdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.

9In my view, given that the applicant’s grievances are being held in abeyance, it is not appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion and order the deferral of the Application.

10The respondents are directed to file a Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

11I am not seized of this matter.