Quijano v. Waterford Services, 2012 HRTO 36

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Eugenio Quijano Applicant

-and-

Waterford Services Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: January 9, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 36 Indexed as: Quijano v. Waterford Services

Written Submissions

Eugenio Quijano ) Self-Represented Applicant ) )

Waterford Services ) Ken Crystal, Representative Respondent )

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, harassment, sexual orientation and age.

2The applicant advised the Tribunal that there is a union grievance in progress which relates to the same facts as are contained in this Application. On October 20, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Defer (NOID) pursuant to Rule 14, inviting the parties to file submissions.

3Ken Crystal filed submissions dated October 25, 2011 on behalf of the respondent indicating that he had spoken with the applicant's union representative and was told that the union supports the termination. The Laborers International Union of North America, Local 183 (the "union") was named as an organization that may be affected by the proceeding and was provided with a copy of the NOID by the Tribunal. No submissions were received from the union.

4The applicant filed a short submission dated November 6, 2011 consenting to the deferral and indicating that he would be getting in touch with his union to ascertain the status of his grievance.

5The applicant filed a second submission dated October 25, 2011 but received by the Tribunal on November 15, 2011, which provides more details of the outstanding grievances. The applicant appears to be of the view that the grievances are in progress.

6Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal's authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the request of a party, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions. 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 (See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404). The Tribunal will 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.

7In this case it is not clear that the grievance proceeding has concluded. The applicant indicates that the facts underlying the grievances and the Application to the Tribunal are the same. I am satisfied that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

8The Tribunal directs the parties' attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on after the conclusion of the grievance process

9I am not seized.