Gosselin v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 2368

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michel Gosselin

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Ernie Soulliere

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 19, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2368

Indexed as: Gosselin v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Michel Gosselin, Applicant

Self-represented

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Ernie Soulliere, Respondents

Erik Kupka, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of a grievance filed on behalf of the Applicant.

2The applicant alleges that the organizational respondent discriminated against him on the ground of disability when it terminated his employment. In his Application, the applicant noted that his union, Ontario Compensation Employees Union, CUPE 1750, had filed a grievance on his behalf. He also enclosed a letter from his union indicating that the union was proceeding with a group grievance on behalf of several employees who were terminated at the same time as the applicant.

3On November 8, 2012, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another proceeding. The Tribunal invited the parties, and the applicant’s union, as an affected party, to provide written submissions on the issue.

4Only the organizational respondent filed submissions in response to the Notice. It submitted that it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the grievance.

decision

5The 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. 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 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 a part of the collective agreement. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42. Thus, the Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

6Since the issues in the Application and the grievance overlap, proceeding with the Application could lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievance. As a result, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding in this matter.

7The 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 proceedings. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “New Applications”.

8I am not seized of this matter.