HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Derek Kerr Applicant
- and-
Chris Vaughan Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: July 29, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1619 Indexed as: Kerr v. Vaughan
1This is an Application filed April 23, 2010 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code") alleging that the respondent subjected the applicant to discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of creed, marital status and disability.
2On June 29, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal invited submissions within 14 days of June 19, 2010 as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred.
3The applicant filed submissions on July 7, 2010. The respondent and the affected party have not filed submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding.
4The applicant provided documents along with his Application which indicate that his union has filed a grievance, dated March 2, 2010, on his behalf regarding his employment-related concerns, specifically harassment and discrimination by the respondent. The documents further indicate that the grievance is currently being considered for arbitration. In his submissions, the applicant notes that "the union and the company are still in talks regarding my grievance".
5The 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.
6The 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. The allegations raised in this Application are part of a grievance process that is still in progress. The applicant did not identify any particular factors which would cause the Tribunal to depart from its normal approach.
7In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance.
8Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of July, 2010.
"signed by"__________
Ena Chadha Vice-chair