Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Tony Sangiuliano Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Dan Stevens and John Cole Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: October 11, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1828 Indexed as: Sangiuliano v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
1This is an Application filed on June 14, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The Application alleges discrimination in employment and, specifically, the failure to properly accommodate a disability in the workplace. The applicant is represented in his employment relations by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU). With the Application, the applicant forwarded two grievances that he has filed through OPSEU that appear to substantially cover the facts of this Application. In one grievance, dated May 19, 2011, the applicant alleges harassment and discrimination and failure to accommodate. In the other grievance, also dated May 19, 2011, the applicant alleges a failure to accommodate him at work based on his medical restrictions.
3In his Application, the applicant did not indicate that he was asking for a deferral of the Application to the grievance proceeding. The respondents have filed a Response as well as a Request for Order asking that the Application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding. In the Request, they indicate that the applicant has agreed to deferral, but the applicant has subsequently filed a Reply in which it is not clear what position he takes.
4In any event, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer this Application to the completion of the grievance proceeding, including arbitration if any.
5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative or on the request of a party. The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.
6The 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).
7The 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. In such a scenario, the Tribunal’s normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.
8In 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 Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
9The 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.
10The other Requests for Order filed by the parties will be dealt with following re-activation of the Application if necessary.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of October, 2011.
_________________________________
Sherry Liang Vice-chair