HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Terry Bullock
Applicant
-and-
Liquor Control Board of Ontario
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Bullock v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Respondent
Justin Diggle, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed on May 1, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
2The applicant indicated in the Application that she is represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (the “Union”) and it appears that a grievance has been filed on her behalf by the Union.
3On June 21, 2012 the Tribunal issued to the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer and asked the parties to make written submissions on whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer the Application. The respondent was advised that it did not have to file a Response until the issue of deferral had been addressed by the Tribunal.
4The respondent filed detailed submissions in support of the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. The respondent indicated that the Union had filed a grievance on February 14, 2012 with respect to the employer’s alleged failure to accommodate the applicant’s disability. On May 9, 2012 this grievance was referred to the Grievance Settlement Board for arbitration.
5Neither the applicant nor the Union filed any submissions on the issue of the deferral of the Application.
Decision
6The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must 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.
7Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).
8In 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. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceeding.
9The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of September, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair