HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Harold Parris
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Parris v. Toronto (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Harold Parris , Applicant ) Self-represented
City of Toronto, Respondent ) Michael S. Martosh, Counsel )
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application filed April 16, 2009, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, claiming discrimination on the basis of disability. The Application alleges that the respondent has failed to accommodate the applicant’s disability.
2On July 27, 2009, processing of the Application was deferred by the Tribunal pending the outcome of the workplace grievance-arbitration procedure undertaken by the parties. See 2009 HRTO 1147. The purpose of the present Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceeding filed March 25, 2011, seeking re-activation of the Application.
3The applicant submits that re-activation of the Application is warranted because,
To rely on speculation that an arbitrator would rule in my favour and potentially reinstate me should my employment be terminated is cause for concern…There is absolutely no reasonable excuse why between myself, Local 416 and the City this could not have been resolved years ago.
4The applicant also includes in his submissions Minutes of Settlement dated February 29, 2011, disposing of a grievance concerning his layoff from work in December 2008.
5The respondent opposes the Request and points out that the grievance settled in February 2011 dealt with issues entirely unrelated to those raised in the Application. Specifically, the Application alleges a failure to accommodate a disability, and does not even mention the 2008 layoff. The respondent also confirms that there are three other outstanding grievances dealing with the issue of accommodation presently proceeding through the grievance-arbitration process.
DECISION
6Tribunal Rule 14.4 provides:
Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any [emphasis added].
7The Interim Decision deferring the Application found (at paragraphs 3-4):
In 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. I am satisfied that the concerns the applicant raises about the Union’s position on his grievance do not justify a departure from the Tribunal’s normal approach. 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….
Accordingly, the Application will be deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process. [emphasis added]
8It appears that, in essence, the applicant is now attempting to re-litigate the original Interim Decision to defer the Application. It may be that the applicant continues to remain dissatisfied by the slow progress and inherent uncertainly of the grievance-arbitration procedure, however, those concerns were already dealt with in the Interim Decision granting the deferral. A decision to defer consideration of the Application until “the completion of the grievance arbitration process” has already been made by the Tribunal and will not be reversed.
9The Request to re-activate the Application is denied.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of April, 2011.
”signed by”_________
Alan G. Smith
Member