HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ali Shahidi

Applicant

-and-

Mohawk College

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 5, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 461

Indexed as: Shahidi v. Mohawk College

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 race, ancestry, ethnic origin and place of origin. The Application includes a copy of a workplace grievance filed on behalf of the applicant alleging bullying and harassment contrary to the Code.

2On January 17, 2012, 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 February 14, 2012, the respondent submitted submissions indicating that an arbitration hearing into the applicant’s grievance is scheduled to commence on April 3, 2012 and it would be more efficient and appropriate to complete that process before proceeding with this Application.

4The applicant did not file submissions and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.

DEFERRAL

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 an on-going grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues as raised in the Application.

7I find that deferral is warranted in the present circumstances. The applicant’s grievance makes allegations which overlap with the facts and issues raised in the Application and seeks similar remedies. The grievance is scheduled to proceed to arbitration in the upcoming months and there is no indication that the applicant’s human rights concerns will not be resolved or dealt with through that process. 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. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.

8The Tribunal orders that the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration 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 conclusion of another proceeding.

9I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 5^th day of March, 2012.