HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Paula Cabral
Applicant
- and-
Consent and Capacity Board and Lorissa Sciarra
Respondents
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Cabral v. Consent and Capacity Board
1The applicant filed this Application on August 18, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of place of origin and disability. In the Application, the applicant indicated that the facts of the Application form part of a union grievance.
2On October 19, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal invited the parties and the affected party to file submissions no later than 30 days from October 19, 2010 as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred.
3On October 25, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add another personal respondent to the Application. The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the issue of deferral.
4On November 8, 2010, the respondents filed written submission in support of the Notice of Intent to Defer. The respondents submit that, between May and October 2010, the applicant has filed three grievances through her union and that all of the grievances are currently being processed. In her grievances, the applicant claims that she has been subjected to discrimination, harassment and reprisal and that the respondent has failed to provide accommodation.
REQUEST TO DEFER
5The 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.
6Some factors that have been identified as relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types 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. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.
7The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. I see no reason to depart from this approach. The interrelated nature of the grievances and the Application is acknowledged by the applicant.
8In these circumstances deferral is appropriate. The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the applicant’s grievances.
9Where 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).
10Given the Tribunal’s decision to defer this Application, the applicant’s request to add a personal respondent can be determined when and if the matter is brought back before the Tribunal.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 25th day of November, 2010
”signed by”______________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair