HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Delroy Martin
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto
Respondent
INTERIM decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Martin v. City of Toronto
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”) on October 19, 2011. The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, sex and reprisal. In the Application the applicant indicated that he has filed a grievance through his bargaining agent, CUPE, Local 79 with respect to his termination from employment and that he is asking that the Application be deferred.
2On November 10, 2011 the Tribunal issued to the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer and asked the parties to make written submissions on whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer the Application.
3On December 12, 2011, the respondent filed a Response and made submissions in support of deferring the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure. The respondent asked the Tribunal to strike a number of allegations in the Application on the basis that the applicant had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement and to then defer the remainder of the Application.
4On December 20, 2011, the applicant filed a Reply which attached the Minutes of Settlement and responded to the respondent’s submission that portions of the Application should be struck.
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). The Tribunal must 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.
6Applying these principles to this case, and in light of the consent of the parties it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process. I do not find it necessary to deal at this time with the respondent’s request to strike some portions of the Application. I find that the appropriate procedure in this case is to defer the entire Application and the respondent’s request to strike certain portions of the Application will be dealt with, if necessary, if the Application is reactivated.
7Accordingly, the Application is deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of January, 2012.
“signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair