Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2010 HRTO 1779

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Groves

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Paul Greer, Tony Roth, Anthony Valaitis and Kaskim Levy

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha

Date: August 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1779

Indexed as: Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against, harassed and subjected to a poisoned workplace on the basis of his disability. The respondents deny the allegations. This Interim Decision deals with a request by the respondents to defer the Application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The 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). Deferral 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.

3While deferral is not automatic, it is granted to avoid adjudicative duplication. The Tribunal has held:

Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application 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 status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. (Christianson v. College of Physicians and Surgeons, 2009 HRTO 438 at para. 10).

4The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues: see Krieger v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 183 and Loranger v. Customs and Immigration Union, 2008 HRTO 432.

5There is a public interest in avoiding the duplication of adjudicative proceedings hearing the same evidence and deciding some or all of the same issues. The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues: Blackman v. Ontario (Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 970 at para. 5. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights as if they were part of the collective agreement: Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.

6The applicant filed a grievance prior to this Application alleging “harassment/discrimination” based on his disability against a co-worker, and condonation by management. The grievance appears to arise out of the same facts and allegations as set out in this Application.

7In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the most fair, just and expeditious approach is to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which a party may request, in accordance to Rule 19, the Tribunal to proceed with an application after the conclusion of another process.