Jim Tampoulhanas v. City of Toronto, 2010 HRTO 2405

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Jim Tampoulhanas Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin Date: December 2, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2405 Indexed as: Tampoulhanas v. Toronto (City)

1This is an Application filed on July 20, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c, H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against in his employment on the basis of disability. Among other things, the applicant alleges that he experienced discrimination in discipline and in comments made to him.

2The respondent has submitted a Response. Among other things, the respondent requests that the Application be deferred because all of the allegations made by the applicant regarding the alleged discrimination are the subject of a grievance.

3On October 4, 2010, the Tribunal sent the Response to the applicant and his union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, highlighting the request to defer and seeking submissions on the same. On October 12, 2010, the union filed a Request to Intervene and submissions on deferral. With respect to deferral, the union states that the grievance is being processed pursuant to the grievance procedure provided in the collective agreement although it has yet to make a decision on whether the union will proceed to arbitration. The applicant filed a Reply on October 15, 2010 where he states that he is "open with the request, so long as the outcome is a favorable [sic] one for me".

4The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. Having regard to the submissions made, including the somewhat conditional nature of the applicant's consent, I see no reason to depart from the Tribunal's usual practice.

5The Application is therefore deferred until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

6The 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 grievance arbitration proceeding has been concluded.

7The union's Request to Intervene remains outstanding and will be addressed if necessary if the matter is brought back on.

8I am not seized of this matter.