Labib Al-Salamony v. Earlscourt-Creche Child Development Institute and Linda Levely, 2011 HRTO 436

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Labib Al-Salamony Applicant

-and-

Earlscourt-Creche Child Development Institute and Linda Levely Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: March 1, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 436 Indexed as: Al-Salamony v. Earlscourt-Creche Child Development Institute

APPEARANCES

Labib Al-Salamony, Applicant ) Brenda Culbert, Counsel Earlscourt-Creche Child Development Institute and Linda Levely ) Frances R. Gallop, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on August 12, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, ethnic origin and age contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondents filed a Response seeking early dismissal of a portion of the Application on the basis that the applicant had filed a grievance, which had appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations contained in the first three paragraphs of Schedule A to his Application. The respondents also sought deferral to the grievance process with respect to the remaining allegations.

2A teleconference hearing was convened on February 18, 2011, at which time counsel for the applicant acknowledged that her client had filed two grievances with respect to the allegations in his Application. The first grievance was filed on September 17, 2009 and is now concluded. The second grievance was filed on September 13, 2010 and is ongoing.

3With respect to the first grievance, counsel for the applicant acknowledged that the first grievance had appropriately dealt with the substance of the first three paragraphs of Schedule A to the Application. She conceded that this portion of the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code.

4Section 45.1 of the Code states:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

5The Tribunal concurs with the concessions of the applicant and orders that the allegations contained in the first three paragraphs of Schedule A to the Application be dismissed on the basis that the grievance proceeding has appropriately dealt with this portion of the substance of the Application.

6After conferring with her client, counsel for the applicant also conceded that deferral to the grievance process on the second grievance was also appropriate. I made an oral ruling at the hearing that the Application would be deferred pending completion of the grievance process on the second grievance.

7The 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.

8I am not seized of this matter.