HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Chris Spence
Applicant
-and-
Invista (Company) Canada
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: Spence v. Invista
1This is an Application filed on September 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 applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of two grievances that are still in progress, filed on his behalf by his union, the Kingston Independent Nylon Workers Union (the “union”).
2This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of this grievance proceeding. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“Notice”) on October 25, 2010. The respondent responded to this Notice in support of deferral. It indicates that the grievances, which are based on the same or similar factual circumstances, are currently being processed through the grievance procedure.
3The union filed submissions to explain its role, but did not take a position on whether or not deferral was appropriate. Although the applicant indicated in his Application that he was not asking to defer it to the grievance process, he did not file submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Notice.
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 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.
5The 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).
6The 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.
7In this case, it is apparent that there are two grievances that address the same issues that are covered by the Application. In view of this, as well as the absence of any opposition to deferral of this matter, the Application will 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 4th day of January, 2011.
”signed by”_____________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair