Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Gary Boyles
Applicant
-and-
Metro Ontario Inc. and Dana Jasinski
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: July 27, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1405 Indexed as: Boyles v. Metro Ontario
1This is an Application filed on April 29, 2011 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.
2The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, and enclosed a copy of the grievance filed on his behalf by his union, CAW Local 414 (the "union"). The grievance relates to the same issues as those giving rise to the Application.
3On June 8, 2011, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the applicant, the respondents and the union, inviting submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance process. The respondents filed submissions and support deferral. Submissions were not received from the applicant or the union and the time for making submissions has now passed.
4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The 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).
5The Supreme Court thus confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding and the Tribunal's normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.
6In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. The matter is still live and the grievance process has not concluded. It is not yet apparent whether or not the applicant's grievance will be referred to arbitration. But if the applicant believes, on conclusion of the process, that his human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, he may ask to have his Application brought back on before the Tribunal.
7The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
8The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of July 2011.
‘Signed by”
Brian Cook Vice-chair