Wenqi (William) Bai v. Aero Tek Manufacturing Ltd. and Cathy Geddis, 2012 HRTO 1616

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Wenqi (William) Bai

Applicant

-and-

Aero Tek Manufacturing Ltd. and Cathy Geddis

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: August 23, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1616

Indexed as: Bai v. Aero Tek Manufacturing Ltd.

Introduction

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"), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of colour and race. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Local Lodge 905) has been identified as an affected party.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer ("NOID") to the parties and affected party dated May 30, 2012 enclosing a copy of the Application and seeking submissions from the parties on whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process.

3The applicant and the affected party did not file submissions. The applicant did not initiate the request for deferral but indicated in the Application that the facts of this Application are part of another proceeding that is still in progress. The respondents filed submissions indicating they do not object to the deferral.

4Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law (See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404). The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

5In this case I am satisfied that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

6The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

7I am not seized.