Jason Herman v. GM Canada – CAMI Assembly and its Agents, 2013 HRTO 1475

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Herman

Applicant

-and-

GM Canada – CAMI Assembly and its Agents

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Auto Workers

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: August 29, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1475

Indexed as: Herman v. GM Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jason Herman, Applicant

Self-represented

GM Canada – CAMI Assembly and its Agents, Respondent

David Bannon, Counsel

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed on August 23, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment. The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to appropriately accommodate needs arising from his disability, and that he was unjustly disciplined because he requested accommodation.

2In response to the question on the Application which asks if the facts of the Application are part of another proceeding, the applicant indicated that they are a part of grievance proceedings.

3On November 26, 2012, the respondents filed a Response denying the allegations. The respondents also requested in the Response that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of grievance proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues as in the Application. Attached to the Response were three grievances dated before and after the Application was filed.

4The applicant states in his Reply that he opposes the deferral request, implying that the respondent is responsible for the grievance process taking so long.

5The Intervenor has filed no submissions with respect to the deferral request.

Deferral

6The 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 Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. (See Melville v. Toronto (City), 2012 HRTO 22). However, the Tribunal must also 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 reviewing the grievances, I note that they are essentially the same allegations as in the Application. Since the facts and issues in the Application and the grievances overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very possibly lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievances. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. In all of the circumstances, I find that deferring the Application is appropriate.

8The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure found on the Tribunal’s website. They address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following the conclusion of the grievances and any arbitration procedure.

9I am not seized.