Mohammed Jeewa v. Toronto District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1643

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mohammed Jeewa Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Ira Applebaum and Verna Lister Respondents

-and-

Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: August 5, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1643 Indexed as: Jeewa v. Toronto District School Board

1This is an Application filed June 10, 2009 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed and that he suffered reprisal or the threat of reprisal.

2The respondents deny the allegations and seek dismissal of the Application.

3The Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The union indicates that it represents the applicant in an ongoing grievance arising out of the facts that give rise to this Application that is proceeding to arbitration pursuant to the collective agreement. The applicant filed a Form 11 in response to the union's request seeking further particularized responses to the questions posed in the Request to Intervene (Form 5). None of the other parties have taken a position on the union's request to intervene.

4Having reviewed the materials, the schedule attached to the Form 5 does set out with sufficient clarity the positions taken by the union on the questions posed in the Form 5. It is clear that the union has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial orders requested by the applicant. The union's request to intervene is granted. The extent and the nature of the union's participation in the proceeding can be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

5In the Request to Intervene, the union indicates that a grievance concerning the Teacher Requested Transfer (TRT) issue is proceeding to arbitration. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have provided submissions on this point.

6Section 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 or on the request of a party, 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. It appears that there is a substantial overlap between the issue going to arbitration and those in the Application and because of this, the Tribunal wishes to receive submissions on whether it is appropriate to defer the Application pending the arbitration.

7The parties are directed to deliver written submissions on the request for deferral to each other and file them with the Tribunal by August 27, 2010.

8There are a number of additional outstanding Requests for Order During Proceedings. The Tribunal will deal with them if necessary following its decision on deferral.

9I am not seized of this matter.