Donald Mills v. Anishinabek Police Service and John Syrette, 2012 HRTO 1911

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Mills

Applicant

-and-

Anishinabek Police Service and John Syrette

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: October 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1911

Indexed as: Mills v. Anishinabek Police Service

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Donald Mills, Applicant

Self-represented

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 issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2On June 14, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer (“Notice”) to the parties, indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application, pending the resolution of a grievance 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.

3The applicant filed submissions indicating that his grievance is on-going. He does not oppose deferral of his Application, but wishes to retain the right to reactivate in the event that a challenge by the respondent to the jurisdiction of the collective agreement is successful. The respondents did not file submissions in response to the Notice.

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.

5Since the issues in the Application and the grievances overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very possibly 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, 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 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