Iman Hamed v. Ministry of Revenue, Government of Ontario and Adrienne Leopold, 2012 HRTO 242

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Iman Hamed

Applicant

-and-

Ministry of Revenue, Government of Ontario and Adrienne Leopold

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: February 2, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 242

Indexed as: Hamed v. Ontario (Revenue)

1The applicant filed this Application on June 15, 2011, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of disability. The applicant alleges that the respondents failed to accommodate her disability. The applicant requests that the Application be deferred pending the completion of a grievance.

2On October 14, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer (“Notice”). The Notice indicated that, pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may defer an Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding. The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred.

3On November 8, 2011, the applicant submitted submissions indicating that an arbitration hearing was scheduled before the Grievance Settlement Board on November 14, 2011, and it would be more efficient to complete that process before proceeding with this Application.

4On November 10, 2011, the respondents filed submissions consenting to the deferral. The respondents indicated that the grievance raises issues concerning accommodation of the applicant’s disability.

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). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6The Tribunal generally defers applications where the parties are already engaged in a concurrent legal proceeding, particularly when the other proceeding is on-going grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues as raised in the Application. The parties in this case consent to deferral. I see no reason to depart from the Tribunal’s general approach given the outstanding proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

ORDER

7The Tribunal orders that the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which set out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application pending the

8I am not seized of this matter.