Franco D’Eramo v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 HRTO 1897

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Franco D’Eramo Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: October 5, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1897 Indexed as: D’Eramo v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

Written Submissions

Toronto Catholic District School Board, Respondent Sharon Duffy, Counsel

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 with respect to employment because of disability. This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request to defer the Application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking production of documents from the applicant and deferral of the Application. The applicant’s union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees local 1280, has also filed an RFOP seeking intervenor status. Given that my decision is to defer this Application, it is unnecessary, at this time to consider the other requests.

3The applicant did not file submissions in response to the respondent’s RFOP.

4The 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). 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, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

5The respondent indicates that the grievance alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and that the underlying facts in the grievance and human rights application are consistent. Since the issues in the Application and the grievance overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very possibly lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts 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, deferring the Application is appropriate.

6The 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 under “New Applications”. 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.

7I am not seized