Dennis Webster v. University Health Network - PMH, 2010 HRTO 2186

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dennis Webster

Applicant

-and-

University Health Network - PMH

Respondent

Interim DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: November 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2186

Indexed as: Webster v. University Health Network - PMH

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Dennis Webster, Applicant ) Self-Represented

University Health Network - PMH , ) Paula M. Rusak, Respondent ) Counsel

1This is an application filed on July 30, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to employment and contracts because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, family status, and age as well as reprisals. The Application, as I understand it, relates to various matters including alleged harassment, a business relationship with the respondent, and the failure to place him in a certain position.

2In his Application, the applicant stated that the facts of the Application were not part of another proceeding still in progress. He made a further note in answer to question 15(c), which deals with completed other proceedings, in which he stated that “The Union and I filed grievances regarding the unequal distribution of shifts and did not raise the issue of Racial Discrimination”. Accordingly, the Application was delivered to the respondent and the Tribunal did not issue a Notice of Intent to Defer, as it would have done had the applicant identified that the facts of the Application were part of an ongoing grievance.

3On September 29, 2010, the respondent filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings and a Request for Summary Hearing. The respondent asks, among other things, that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings under the collective agreement between the Ontario Nurses’ Association (“ONA”) and the respondent. For the reasons that follow, I find that the Application should be deferred and that the respondent need not file a full Response at this time.

4The applicant filed a grievance on December 22, 2009 regarding the issue of unequal distribution of shifts. He filed a subsequent grievance on March 25, 2010 alleging a violation of the collective agreement and the Code “by failing to provide me with a workplace free from harassment and abuse by failing to address disruptive physician behaviour and by continuing to deny me an equitable distribution of available work in the ambulatory clinics”.

5The respondent seeks deferral on the basis that the issues in the grievances are the same as the issues raised before the Tribunal in this Application. The applicant opposes deferral, noting, among other things, his dissatisfaction with his representation by ONA, and arguing that his human rights issues can only be fully addressed in an HRTO proceeding.

6The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. 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 and other employment-related statutes 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).

7In this case, it is apparent that there is at least a substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievances. The concerns the applicant raises do not justify a departure from the Tribunal’s normal approach, which is to defer pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

8Accordingly, the Application will be deferred pending the resolution of the two grievances. Given the deferral, it would not be fair to require a complete Response from the respondent at this time.

9The Tribunal notes that where 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).

10I am not seized.