Wilson v. Algonquin Power Energy From Waste, 2011 HRTO 68

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terence Wilson

Applicant

-and-

Algonquin Power Energy From Waste Inc. and Howard Titus

Respondents

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: January 10, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 68

Indexed as: Wilson v. Algonquin Power Energy From Waste

1This is an Application filed on July 5, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c, H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges that the applicant was discriminated against when he was not returned from lay-off on the basis of disability. The Application also alleges reprisal.

2The applicant had indicated that the facts set out in the Application are part of a union grievance still in progress and attached a grievance form. The grievance alleges that the “Employer failed to return to work said employ [sic] from layoff where senority [sic] afforded ability to receive recall”. The applicant states that he is not seeking deferral.

3On October 20, 2010, the Tribunal issued the Application along with a Notice of Intent to Defer. The Tribunal sought submissions from the parties and the applicant’s union on the issue of deferral. The Notice provided that submissions should be filed with the Tribunal no later than 30 days from October 12, 2010.

4On November 11, 2010, the respondent filed submissions. The respondent states that the issues as set out in the Application and the grievance are identical in nature and that the grievance is following the usual procedures as set out in the collective agreement. The respondent states that the Application should be deferred in accordance with the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules.

5The applicant and his union, Canadian Auto Workers Local 252, have not filed any submissions and the time provided for filing submissions has elapsed.

6The Tribunal will generally defer an application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

7In the circumstances of this case, having regard to the material and submissions filed, I see no reason to depart from the Tribunal’s usual practice. The Application is therefore deferred until the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

8The 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 proceeding has been concluded. Should the Application be brought back on, the Tribunal will set a date for the respondent to file a Response (Form 2).

9I am not seized of this matter.