Frank Conboy v. The Corporation of the United Townships of Dysart, 2010 HRTO 2184

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Frank Conboy

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the United Townships of Dysart

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: November 1, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2184 Indexed as: Conboy v. Dysart (Townships)

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on August 16, 2010. He alleges harassment on the basis of family status, and reprisal, in employment.

2This Interim Decision addresses a request by the respondent that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to defer dealing with the Application pursuant to Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure due to an application the applicant has filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board ("OLRB") pursuant to section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1 ("unlawful reprisal application"), which the respondent argues deals with identical allegations. That matter is scheduled for a hearing at the OLRB on November 24, 2010.

3The respondent made its deferral request by way of submissions filed with its Response (Form 2) on October 6, 2010, which included a copy of the applicant's unlawful reprisal application. The Tribunal delivered the Response to the applicant, and provided him 14 days to make Reply submissions addressing the respondent's deferral request. No Reply was received by the Tribunal.

4Pursuant to the Rules, the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative. 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. While 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).

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. It appears from the materials filed that the subject matter of this Application is substantially similar to the subject matter of the applicant's unlawful reprisal application. It can be expected that much of the evidence in the two proceedings would be duplicative. The OLRB has the power to apply the Code.

6For these reasons, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion and defer the Application pending the outcome of the unlawful reprisal application.

7The 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 other proceeding has been concluded.