Cormier v. Loblaws Inc., 2012 HRTO 2352

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charles Cormier

Applicant

-and-

Loblaws Inc.

Respondent

-and-

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1000A

Affected Party

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: December 17, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2352 Indexed as: Cormier v. Loblaws Inc.

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of creed.

2In its response to the Application (Form 2) the respondent requested that it be deferred pending the resolution of a grievance related to the same facts and issues. The applicant was invited to make submissions in response to the request to defer but has not done so although the time for dong so has passed. In a Request to Intervene filed by the affected party, it confirms that a grievance with respect to the facts and issues raised in this Application has been filed and was being processed in the normal course. As of this writing the parties have not advised the Tribunal of any change in the status of the grievance proceeding.

3The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). The Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case.

4However the Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and 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.

5The Supreme Court thus confirmed that human rights tribunals are not the only decision-makers that can decide human rights claims. Where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding in which they are raising the same human rights issues before a decision-making body with the authority to make determinations about those issues, the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the other proceeding. In such a scenario, the Tribunal's normal approach is to defer to the other proceeding.

6In this case, it appears that the facts and issues in the two proceedings. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

7The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.

8The affected party's Request to Intervene will be dealt with in the event that there is a request to bring this Application back on pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4.

9I am not seized of this case.