Collins v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2012 HRTO 1609

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Collins

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Andrew Simpson, Tom Connoly, Tara Jackson and Christopher Behrman

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: August 22, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1609

Indexed as: Collins v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jason Collins, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Andrew Simpson, Tom Connoly, Tara Jackson and Christopher Behrman, Respondents

Indira Sawh, Counsel

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 grievance proceeding.

2On July 16, 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 within 30 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Defer.

3The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, and encloses a copy of the grievance filed on his behalf by his union, OPSEU 30.

4The applicant takes the position that the Application should not be deferred. He is of the view that the grievance process would not be productive although he fails to clearly articulate why he believes this to be the case. The respondents take the position that the Application should be deferred on the basis that the issues in the grievance and the Application are the same and that the grievance procedure is ongoing.

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 is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement 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 a grievance and arbitration process that is still in progress. Since the issues in the Application and the grievance overlap, 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 grievance. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

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 grievance and arbitration procedure. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca.

8I am not seized.