Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board, 2012 HRTO 474

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Deopaul Chintaman

Applicant

-and-

Toronto District School Board, Craig Snider, Don Higgins, and Lisa Kivlichan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: March 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 474

Indexed as: Chintaman v. Toronto District School Board

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on January 4, 2010. The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 463 pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

2On January 19, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that the Tribunal reactivate his Application. The applicant indicates that, based on information provided by the union, the grievance arbitration has been adjourned sine die as the union and respondent are in the process of negotiating a resolution of the applicant’s case. The applicant indicates that he “can not sit and wait indefinitely for an answer or decision or resolution from the Union”. The applicant requests that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to reactivate his Application, notwithstanding the fact that the grievance arbitration process has not been completed, because of the unacceptable delay and ineffectiveness of the process.

3Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure outlines the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on once the conditions set out in the deferral decision have been satisfied. Rule 14.4 states that:

Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any. (emphasis added)

4The Interim Decision deferring this Application found that the facts and issues raised in this Application are part of the grievance process and that there was substantial overlap between the Application and the grievance that was referred to arbitration.

5The applicant has not established that his grievance and the arbitration process is completed. Based on the information provided by the applicant, it appears that the union and respondent are engaged in resolution discussions in effort to resolve his grievance and that the arbitration, having been adjourned sine die, may be reconvened at a later date. While the applicant may be dissatisfied with the services of his union and the developments in his case, a grievance nevertheless remains outstanding and the arbitration process has not yet concluded. As such, there does not appear to be a basis to reactivate this Application.

6I decline to reactive this Application. A request to proceed with a deferred application can only be granted when the other process, upon which the application was deferred, has been completed. 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. To allow this Application to proceed in these circumstances would thwart the Tribunal’s previous order and would result in concurrent legal proceedings. This would effectively disregard the very basis upon which deferral is considered appropriate.

7Accordingly, the applicant’s request to reactivate his Application is denied. I am not seized of this matter.