HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Denis Leclair
Applicant
-and-
Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Eric Whist
Indexed as: Leclair v. Hôpital régional de Sudbury Regional Hospital
1This Application was filed on March 15, 2010 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. The Application alleges that the respondent did not accommodate the applicant’s return to work following an absence related to the applicant’s disability. This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request that the Application be deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.
2The respondent’s request to defer was made as part of its Response to the Application. In a letter dated August 23, 2010, the Tribunal invited the applicant to respond within 14 days to the respondent’s request. The Tribunal has not received submissions from the applicant as of the date of this Interim Decision.
DECISION
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 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The purpose of deferring an Application is to ensure that proceedings dealing with some or all of the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Given this purpose, the Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.
4However, the 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.
5Having considered the circumstances of this case, I order the deferral of the applicant’s Application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process. I am satisfied that a grievance process is currently proceeding which appears to be addressing the same issues raised in the Application. A copy of the applicant’s grievance, dated January 8, 2010 is before me. It clearly indicates that the applicant is grieving the alleged failure by the respondent to meet its duty to accommodate the applicant.
6A letter dated February 11, 2010 from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the applicant’s bargaining agent, is also before me indicating that the applicant and his bargaining agent intend to proceed to arbitration. This would suggest that the grievance/arbitration process is well underway. I further note that grievance arbitrators not only have the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement as was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).
7In the circumstances of this case, I find that deferral is appropriate. To proceed with the Application at this time would be an inefficient and inappropriate use of the resources of the Tribunal and the parties. A deferral also avoids the problem of two concurrent proceedings making inconsistent findings of law or fact.
8The Application will be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant’s grievance. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the applicant’s grievance has been resolved.
9I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 15^th^ day of September, 2010.
“Signed by”
Eric Whist
Vice-chair