HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joseph Esmama
Applicant
-and-
Carillion Services Canada, Drew Johnson, Ben Contella, and Bill Houston
Respondents
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee
Indexed as: Esmama v. Carillion Services Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Joseph Esmama, Applicant ) Self-represented
Carillion Services Canada, Drew ) Dan Shields, Counsel Johnson, Ben Contella, and Bill ) Houston, Respondents )
Canadian Union of Public Employees, ) Susan Ballantyne, Counsel Local 145, Intervenor )
[1] The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the Tribunal should grant the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 145’s (the “Union”) Request to Intervene in this proceeding, and the respondents’ Request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration proceeding.
[2] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 7, 2011, which alleged that the Carillion Services Canada discriminated against him with respect to employment (File No. 2011-10224-I).
[3] On March 22, 2012, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, [2012 HRTO 596](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2012/596), which granted the Union’s Request to Intervene because it had an interest in the proceeding. The Tribunal also ordered that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration proceeding for the following reasons:
The Tribunal will generally defer applications pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under a collective agreement that raise the same issues as those in the Application: Melville v. Toronto (City), 2012 HRTO 22. Labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Code and the Tribunal’s approach to deferral avoids the duplication of proceedings. The applicant does not dispute that he has an ongoing grievance raising the same issues and there are no exceptional circumstances in this case that justify a departure from the Tribunal’s general approach.
[4] On May 31, 2012, the applicant filed a further Application under s. 34 of the Code, which alleged that the respondents subjected him to reprisal by terminating his employment after the Tribunal deferred his first Application (Tribunal File No. 2012-11695-I). The Union filed a grievance with respect to the termination which is ongoing.
[5] The Union’s Request to Intervene is granted and the Application will be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration proceeding for same reasons set out in its Interim Decision, [2012 HRTO 596](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2012/596). Where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4). The Tribunal will address the respondents’ request to consolidate the two Applications if and when they are reactivated.
[6] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of September, 2012.
“signed by”
Ken Bhattacharjee
Vice-chair