HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ali Hussain
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Provincial Police
Respondent
-and-
Ontario Provincial Police Association
Intevenor ______________________________________________________________________
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Hussain v. Ontario Provincial Police
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ali Hussain, Applicant
Self-represented
Ontario Provincial Police, Respondent
Marnie Corbold, Counsel
Ontario Provincial Police Association, Intervenor
Jenifer Jopling, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of reprisal and family status. The Application was filed on May 24, 2013.
2In the Application, the applicant indicated that there was a related grievance proceeding although it appears that a grievance may not actually have been filed until July 2013.
3The Application was delivered to the respondent and the Ontario Provincial Police Association (“the Association”). The Association filed a Request to Intervene. The Association noted there were ongoing workplace issues that the Association was involved in. the Request to Intervene has not been opposed by the applicant or the respondent and the Request is granted. The extent of the Association’s involvement in a hearing of this matter at the Tribunal will be determined by the adjudicator assigned to hear the Application.
4The respondent filed a full Response to the Application on July 26, 2013.
5On August 21, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Application pending the resolution of a grievance proceeding. The respondent provided a copy of a grievance which appears to have been filed on July 24, 2013. The grievance includes a “Synopsis of Grievance” which sets out the background to the grievance. The Synopsis is identical to the narrative set out in the Application.
6The applicant filed a Response to the Request for Order During Proceedings. He opposes deferral because the situation at work and the concerns underlying the Application have been ongoing for several months and he does not want further delay.
Analysis
7The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. 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 part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).
8The applicant's concerns about delay are understandable. However, it appears that he has initiated a grievance proceeding that raises the same issues as are raised in the Application. If the grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator will have the same jurisdiction to deal with the human rights issues as this Tribunal.
9It is not appropriate for two proceedings involving the same issues and the same parties to be proceeding at the same time and when there is a concurrent grievance proceeding, the orderly administration of justice generally favours deferral.
10If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the process, that his human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, he may ask to have his Application brought back on before the Tribunal.
11The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
12The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.
Decision
13The Application is deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.
14The Association’s request to intervene is granted.
Dated at Toronto, this 10^th^ day of October, 2013.
“signed by”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair