HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Donald Sollitt
Applicant
-and-
Trillium Lakelands District School Board, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Lynn Raback
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Indexed as: Sollitt v. Trillium Lakelands District School Board
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relation Board (OLRB).
2On June 29, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver and file any written submissions which they wished to make in respect of the deferral issue by July 30, 2012.
3The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a duty of fair representation application and an application filed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, and that both these applications have been consolidated and will be heard by the OLRB on September 12, 2012. The applicant enclosed both applications with the Application.
4The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the deferral issue in response to the Tribunal’s notice of Intent to Defer. The respondents take the position that the Application should be deferred on the basis that the issues in the applications before the OLRB are the same as those raised in the Application.
5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of a party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there are ongoing proceedings before the OLRB based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
6Some, if not all, of the facts and issues raised in this Application are part of proceedings before the OLRB. Both the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB relate to the accommodation of the applicant’s medical condition and restrictions. Since the issues in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very well lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the proceedings before the OLRB. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.
7The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the proceedings before the OLRB. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 20th day of August, 2012.
Signed by
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair