Ronald Marston v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Children and Family Services, 2013 HRTO 1551

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Ronald Marston Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Children and Family Services, Lurie-Lee Steeles, Mark Mikuloff, James Culp and Don Chapman Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman Date: September 16, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1551 Indexed as: Marston v. Ontario (Children and Family Services)

Written Submissions

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Children and Family Services, Lurie-Lee Steeles, Mark Mikuloff, James Culp and Don Chapman, Respondents

Cathy Phan, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The applicant maintains that he was subjected to workplace harassment by the respondents that caused and then aggravated his stress.

2The respondents have requested that consideration of the Application be deferred because the applicant has also filed a complaint under the corporate respondent's internal Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy (WDHP). They state that the subject matter of his complaint is identical to the issues raised by the Application. They further state that the applicant has agreed to try mediation to resolve the internal complaint and that the corporate respondent is in the process of engaging a mediator.

3The applicant has not responded to the respondents' Request.

4The 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.

5However, the Tribunal has held that an internal investigation or complaints resolution process does not constitute a proceeding within the meaning of s.45.1 of the Code (see Chartrand v. Ontario (Government Services), 2012 HRTO 2002 at paras 9-10). Accordingly, the risk of inconsistent decision-making as between two proceedings does not arise in such circumstances.

6The respondents' Request gives rise to the same issues that were considered in Chartrand. I adopt the reasoning in that case and find that it applies to the facts in this Application. The respondents' Request is therefore denied.

Order

7The respondents' Request is denied. As the parties have indicated a willingness to try mediation, the Registrar is requested to schedule a mediation session.