Ngan Kwan Wong v. Mon Sheong Home for the Aged, 2010 HRTO 429

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Ngan Kwan Wong Applicant

-and-

Mon Sheong Home for the Aged Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: February 24, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 429 Indexed as: Wong v. Mon Sheong Home for the Aged

1The applicant filed her Application on August 23, 2009 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 discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability. This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s Request for an Order during Proceedings (the “Request”) to defer the Application pending the outcome of a related grievance filed by the applicant.

2The respondent submits that the grievance filed by the applicant is in relation to the respondent’s alleged failure to accommodate the applicant’s disability and is the same allegation that is contained in the Application filed with the Tribunal. The respondent further submits that the applicant is seeking the same relief in the two proceedings, namely, reinstatement to full time employment.

3The applicant states, in response, that she agrees to defer her Application in the hopes that matters will be settled through the grievance and arbitration process.

Decision

4The 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. However, 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.

5The Tribunal, having considered the circumstances of this case, orders the deferral of the applicant’s Application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process. It appears that the applicant’s grievance and Application are based on the same facts and issues. Grievance and arbitration processes routinely deal with human rights issues. Furthermore, the applicant does not oppose a deferral.

6Given this decision to defer the Application it is unnecessary to rule at this time on the further Request for an Order during Proceedings filed by the respondent requesting particulars from the applicant.

7The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the process by which an Application may be re-activated after being deferred. 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.

8I am not seized of this matter.