Yohanathan Kanapathipillai v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2013 HRTO 1251

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Yohanathan Kanapathipillai Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Peel Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: July 17, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1251 Indexed as: Kanapathipillai v. Regional Municipality of Peel

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Regional Municipality of Peel, Respondent John H. Gescher, Counsel

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievances filed on behalf of the applicant.

2By Application filed May 28, 2012, the applicant alleged discrimination in employment because of race, colour, place of origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). In his Application, the applicant stated that the subject matter of the Application is being dealt with in a grievance filed by his union.

3By Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 657, dated April 19, 2013, the Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions as to whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the grievances filed on behalf of the applicant.

4Only the respondent filed submissions in response to the Interim Decision. The respondent stated that the hearing of the applicant's grievances has commenced. According to the respondent, four more hearing dates have been scheduled for the Fall of 2013. The respondent submitted that it would be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of the grievance.

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). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. 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 a part of the collective agreement. See Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42. Thus, the Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

6Since the issues in the Application and the grievance overlap, proceeding with the Application could lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievance. As a result, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the arbitration in this matter.

7The parties' attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance proceedings. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal's website, www.hrto.ca under "New Applications". It should be noted that a party who wishes to reactivate an Application deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding must file a request with the Tribunal no later than sixty days after the conclusion of the other proceeding.

8I am not seized of this matter.