Denise Laing v. Thames EMS-Elgin St. Thomas and Jim Malik, 2010 HRTO 949

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Denise Laing

Applicant

-and-

Thames EMS-Elgin St. Thomas and Jim Malik

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: April 30, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 949

Indexed as: Liang v. Thames EMS

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 January 10, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment based on disability. The Application identifies that the facts of the Application are also the subject of a union grievance.

2On April 14, 2010 the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties asking for submissions as to whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the applicant’s grievance. The parties were directed to provide written submissions within 14 days. The Tribunal has received submissions from the respondents.

3The respondents submit that the Application should be deferred given that a grievance was filed by the applicant on January 18, 2010 alleging a breach of the Code and raising the same issues as those raised in the Application.

4The respondents indicate that a hearing of the grievance before an arbitrator has been scheduled for May 31, 2010 and submit that arbitrators have within their jurisdiction the authority to issue remedies that would be appropriate.

5Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the 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. In each case, the Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application

6An arbitration hearing has been set to deal with the same allegations as raised in the Application and will take place shortly. It will take place before a decision maker with appropriate remedial authority. Consequently, the Application is deferred until the arbitration hearing is complete and a decision issued. To proceed with the Application at this time would be an inefficient and inappropriate use of the resources of the Tribunal and the parties. A deferral also avoids the problem of two concurrent proceedings making inconsistent findings of law or fact.

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 grievance process has been concluded.

10I am not seized.